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