Quite right. It is intended for compositing rendered objects into
captured images. What bothers me about the images posted
here is that the background environment looks out of focus,
lacks detail, and is low contrast. I think this has to do with the
detail present in the HDR image map. However, as Cadman
has said, the original intent was to provide accurate lighting
for rendered objects, then composite these rendered
object into another, more detailed, environment.

The technique is not for computer rendering purists who
consider the use of photographic maps to be cheating. For
my images I like to combine stereoscopic photographs with
stereoscopic rendered objects. HDRI will be great for
these images.

HB

"cadman" <REM### [at] povraycouk> wrote in message
news:3e158abe$1@news.povray.org...
> Hi all,
>
> IMHO:
>
> In [quickly] reading the SIGGRAPH paper that started all this (at
> http://www.debevec.org) it seems that HDRI is not for 100% "virtual"
scenes.
> It seems that the idea is to take a "real" scene, i.e. a photograph and
use
> the HDR as a basis for lighting virtual objects so they fit into the scene
> realistically.  To quote the author from his paper "Rendering Synthetic
> Objects Into Real Scenes":
>
> "Rendering synthetic objects into real-world scenes is an important
> application of computer graphics...Oftentimes, a peice of furniture, a
prop,
> or a digital creature or actor needs to be rendered seamlessly into a real
> scene.  This diffucult task requires that the objects be lit consistently
> with the surfaces in their vicinity, and that the interplay of light
between
> the objects and their surroundings be properly simulated..."
>
> ...and so on.  This is the real advantage of HDRI and Mael's patch.  Not
to
> take anything away from the astounding HDRI images that have appeared here
> in this NG, but I don't feel that any of the images posted reflect the
> purpose of HDRI rendering.  Instead, HDRI simply provides them with a
> shortcut to good lighting.  This aspect has been duplicated by yourself
and
> Jaime (and any image with good lighting, I guess).  Therefore, I too, ask
> why HDRI?
>
>
> "Charles Panke" <cha### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
> news:3e15581b@news.povray.org...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the images made with HDRI have a really amazing lighting.
> > And as far as I can see there is not so much effort in
> > setting the scene lights.
> >
> > So I tried to make a similiar thing. It's a sphere with
> > a mapped picture for lighting, traced with radiosity of
> > course.
> > When I see the result I think there is not much difference
> > compared to the HDRI method.
> >
> > So my question:
> > What is the advantage of HDRI?
> >
> > Maybe I'm blind...
> >
> > -C-H-A-R-L-E-S-
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message