On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:01:29 -0500, Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit>
wrote:

>Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce wrote:
>
>> Because I'm sure that maaany intresting shaders will be made if we
>> make an easy system to do them. Just check out how many shaders you
>> can find for renderman, or how many shader collections there are for
>> raytracers that support pluggable shaders (mentalray,lightwave, or mhm
>> do U know/remember the essence collection for imagine??). Just think
>> about cloud shaders, skin (translucent) shader, special effects,
>> cel-look shaders, improved local reflection models... With renderman
>> shaders you can even replicate fur...
>> Also this is a feature that is not common among freeware raytracers
>> (and not so common among commercial raytracers too) so povray could
>> make another big step toward being the definitive renderer
>> 
>
>By the way, Renderman shaders are much more clear and compact than
>many Pov textures (instead of finding contorsions necessary to create a 
>given effect, you just code it). In the second edition of the Procedural 
>Texures book there are extremely powerful shaders which are shown in
>little more than 20/40 lines (and don't tell me you can do everything with
>feature X... if this was true, there would be no need for anything besides
>assembler!)
>
>If Pov has to have a future, programmable shaders are a must.
Yeah, I really agree with you... There are even 3d graphicians that do
only shader programming in a 3d production... This should tell us
something about shaders... Btw look just look around and see how many
rman shaders books, examples and neat things are on the web...

Post a reply to this message