news:3fe3c4b0@news.povray.org...
>
> I guess I don't understand.  Couldn't you simply code-up a situation that
> would be suitable?

In short: POV-Ray doesn't "talk" natively to other products.
1) Your modelers, animators, texturers won't be able to have their fine work
correctly and fluently translated in POV-Ray. For instance:
- models will have to be exported as polygon meshes, losing for example
NURBS information. In fact, in my experience, even translation from external
geometry to POV-Ray mesh is far from streamlined.
- shaders will have to be translated into POV-Ray materials, something that
is presently possible only for a limited subset of them.
- more generally, no development platform (where everything is put together
for rendering) can "feed" directly its data to POV-Ray so you're going lose
a lot in the translation process, including time and money.
2) Your post-process and special effects people won't be able to work on the
rendered movie because POV-Ray's output is "flat" and doesn't have separate
layers that can be processed and tweaked independently, for instance in
Adobe After Effects.
These are just examples: there are many other issues to consider such as
rendering speed, availability of POV-savvy graphic artists, tech support
etc.
Surely, POV-Ray can be morphed, through heavy coding, into something
suitable for a particular project. Some people have done this for scientific
purpose IIRC. In fact, it is already suitable for a vast number of
non-hobbyist projects (see my other post) and POV-Ray has de facto its own
niche market. However, given the vast choice of production-ready renderers
out there, there's no much point in using POV-Ray for this particular job in
a commercial environment. POV-Ray-made animations and the IMP project are,
of course, extremely cool, but this is not what we're talking about here.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message