"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote in message 
news:4a38e15e@news.povray.org...
| "Chambers" <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> a crit dans 
le
| message de news: 4a389314$1@news.povray.org...
| > Likewise, using a program like Moray to model a scene and export it 
to POV
| > is OK; positioning figures in Poser and exporting them to your 
favorite
| > raytracer is OK; rendering a scene using the scanline renderer in 
Blender
| > is not.
| >
|
| The problem with the "raytracing" part is that the days of scanline vs
| raytracing are long gone now. Modern renderers use and combine a wide 
array
| of rendering techniques and even post-processing is sometimes built in 
the
| rendering interface. For the end user, knowing what algorithm is 
actually
| used may be fuzzy, particularly for commercial renderers. Raytracing 
is a
| *** historical *** rendering method, that is still relevant in certain 
areas
| (real-time rendering) but no longer prominent in production or even 
amateur
| environment, at least as a stand-alone technology. Restricting the 
rendering
| method to "raytracing" seems a step backward, unless the IRTC is meant 
to be
| some sort of "good ole times" competition, just like there are vintage 
car
| shows ;)
|
| This is really the heart of the problem here. The IRTC was created at 
a time
| where the most promising, best-looking rendering technology 
(raytracing) had
| become affordable for amateurs so it was all kinds of exciting. But 
now this
| makes really little sense outside the POV-Ray community, since the 
other
| rendering engines (including some POV-Ray patches!) have gone far 
beyond
| raytracing, and amateur 3D artists and coders have much more tools to 
play
| with.
|
| G.
|
Gilles,

Which 'open source'/freeware renderers best represent your description 
of
a post ray tracing software ?

Post a reply to this message