Although most of my work so far has been more abstract (that is, things that
you won't find in real life), I make it in such a way that if it *did*
appear in real life, the mathematics behind it all would be identical. I
don't use hacks to make things look realistic if the workings behind them
are unrealistic, with a few exceptions. For example, I try to avoid
shadowless lights, because you don't find shadowless lights in the real
world. Stuff like that.

- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>

Post a reply to this message