"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:497bc2e8@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote
>>>
>>> Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
>>> appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
>>
>>    Yes, but times have moved on now...
>>
>>     Perhaps the thing to do is split it.
>>
>>     o- PoV only HOF. (Total CSG and render).
>>
>>     o- PoV/other/HOF. (Use of other tool and render).
>
> I didn't say other tools shouldn't be used at all. But somebody who 
> created
> a texture in a graphic program, a mesh in a 3D modeller, and put the model
> with the texture as an image_map in a povray scene, doesn't seem worth
> putting in povray HOF, even if with only those two elements the image 
> looks
> awesome.
>

Like Steve said: Times have moved on. We do not need anymore to rely solely 
on POV-Ray to create great scenes. Meshes, which I consider the greatest 
step forward since the creation of CSG, are much better created in other 
applications. Maybe some complex things are fun to be made in CSG, but if a 
version version renders a hundredfold faster, then the choice is clear. 
Consider for example Gilles Tran's MakeTree macro. An excellent piece of 
work, still very useful for single trees. But a forest? Just forget it. With 
an application like POV-Tree (and others), the macro has become obsolete (As 
Gilles says himself). And I could cite many other examples. So where would 
the limit be for images to be considered worth their inclusion into HOF?

HOF, is/should be, in my perception, the showcase of what can be achieved - 
technically and artistically - with different *tools* centered around 
POV-Ray as the principal and sole renderer, the hub as it were of the whole 
creative process by the artist. This excludes automatically any rendered 
image achieved inside Poser or inside Blender, or inside whatever other 
renderer is available in the outside world.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message