Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> Professionals have access to hardware, software, shaders, texture libraries
> etc. that hobbysts don't have, and they also have the training. If you've
> seen the "Time machine" (not a very good movie so you may not have missed
> much) there are some landscape morphing sequences that are quite impressive,
> and all the vegetation was created with xfrog. I really don't think I could
> do the same.

I did not see 'Time machine' yet, but i saw a trailer with one of those
landscape morphings.  You are surely right about the available hardware
and software resources but to me it seems the artificial landscape
sequences from movies are commonly produced with a lot of human work and
quite few algorithmic modelling (except for the detail structure which is
often hard to distinguish from bump mapping if you view a movie) and
usually won't be suited for a high quality still render.

> Water textures and surfaces is also an area where pros using specific
> shaders and plug-ins really have an advantage over hobbyists (I'm talking
> final images, not demos).

I think water textures are really nothing where hobbyists and espacially
POV-Ray has to hide from the professionals.  POV-Ray is capable of
creating fairly realistic water materials - of course often quite slow,
but also of much higher quality than a lot of water you can see in
professional work (which has often a quite metal like appearance)  The
real problem about water is the geometry, things like breaking waves,
waterfalls, etc.  Here the available hard- and software of course plays a
significant role.

> Yes, this is really the point actually. Any natural element or object is
> really hard to reproduce realistically and the closer it is to the camera
> the more difficult it is to model. We can only have an "impressionistic"
> approach with a lot of simplifications. In a classic landscape image, the
> ground, for instance, is already a problem : how to maintain realism on the
> parts closest to the viewer without overloading the parts in the background
> with unecessary details, and still maintain the continuity between
> foreground and background ? 

You should really try out isosurfaces, controlling their shape in detail
is indeed not that easy, but it all comes back to the speed problem in the
end - if rendering was faster modelling would be easier.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message