 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
13 entries this round.
4 use POV-Ray.
1 uses Blender.
The other eight all use some $$$ renderer.
What gives?
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Roberto Ferrer de Amorim
Subject: Re: Where have all the POVers gone?
Date: 19 Jul 2001 13:05:14
Message: <3b57134a@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I used to be a POVer, but now I'm more into Blender, specially for
animations... scanline renderers are much faster, and thus make you much
more productive. That explains also the $$$ renderers you mentioned.
If I want (or need) raytracing, I'd still use POV for simple raytraced
images, but if things get more complicated, I'd go with BMRT. Or maybe
LightFlow (although I don't think lightflow is a true/dedicated raytracer
like POV).
I guess that with the long render times raytraced animations (with POV,
BMRT, Virtualight and others) become unfeasible for most users.
I know you asked first, but what do *you* think of it? What might be the
reason?
Best regards,
Roberto "Wolfox" Amorim
> 13 entries this round.
>
> 4 use POV-Ray.
>
> 1 uses Blender.
>
> The other eight all use some $$$ renderer.
>
> What gives?
>
> Regards,
> John
> --
> ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roberto Ferrer de Amorim <ram### [at] comdesconto combr> wrote:
: I'd still use POV for simple raytraced
: images, but if things get more complicated, I'd go with BMRT. Or maybe
: LightFlow
Why? What's so much better in those than in POV-Ray?
I haven't have the chance to test too much, but deducing from a couple of
simple tests which I was able to perform, POV-Ray is ofter much more efficient
than LightFlow (I have no idea about BMRT).
PS: I don't know why, but it seems to be a pretty common idea that
POV-Ray is a lot slower than other raytracers. Where does this idea come
from? I have never seen any actual test showing that other raytracers were
significantly faster than POV-Ray; all the contrary: I have witnessed some
tests were POV-Ray is quite a lot faster than another raytracer (LightFlow).
Another funny phenomenon is that when a new Raytracer is made and the
author makes a couple of test images which show the very best of this new
raytracer, then the simple fact that these images look different from
typical POV-Ray images make people think that the new raytracer is a lot
better than POV-Ray. No matter how many stunning incredibly photorealistic
images people make with POV-Ray, this phenomenon is prevalent.
I'm not saying that there couldn't be a raytracer which has some much better
features and quality than POV-Ray; what I mean is that people are way too
eager to believe a couple of example images and circulating rumors, instead
of adopting a rational approach.
As for scanline rendering being faster than raytracing, well, this is
completely true.
However, the idea of the speed difference between scanline rendering and
raytracing is often very biased. Scanline renderers usually use just
triangles to define the whole scene, and people too often compare it to
POV-Ray rendering complicated primitives and CSG.
In fact, if we give the exact same scene made of triangle meshes to POV-Ray,
most people will probably be quite suprised how fast POV-Ray renders it.
POV-Ray can be incredibly fast when rendering triangle meshes. I have gone
up to more than 30 millions of triangles in a scene, and POV-Ray renders it
in about 1 minute (800x600, antialiasing, three light sources). A scanline
renderer couldn't do much better.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For me it came down to what I wanted to be able to do
in an animation. Programming my own in-betweener
program and trying to link it into my work flow using
Moray and POLYRAY was fun, but I noticed my models kept
wanting to get more and more organic and I wanted to be
able to animate control points in bezier patches,
etc... I had had Hash AM before but found going from a
CSG/scripting background a spline-based modeller too
hard, but thought I'd try it again and lo and behold I
am modelling at full tilt now without problems and
LOVING all the additional power I have to animate.
For mathematical animation I still use POLYRAY and my
Tweener program and hand coding, but for character
animation, AM is pretty sweet. I wouldn't want to be
in the middle of my current project using POV or
POLYRAY- I would not anywhere near as far into it as I
am already.
For me it isn't the raytracer per se (thought hat is
part of it) but in getting the data to the raytracer in
such a way that I am *animating* rather than
scripting/programming all the time.
-peter
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother? I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3b571851@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> PS: I don't know why, but it seems to be a pretty common idea
> that POV-Ray is a lot slower than other raytracers.
> [...]
> Another funny phenomenon is that when a new Raytracer is made and
> the author makes a couple of test images which show the very best
> of this new raytracer, ....
A simple explaination?
For many people, POV-Ray is the reference.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A simple explaination?
>
> For many people, POV-Ray is the reference.
yup - you want to write a raytracer, your first stop is the povray source
code.
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thats simple..
Helper applications. Automated plugins, etc..
And most of all..
'Learning curve'
"John VanSickle" <van### [at] erolscom> wrote in message
news:3B57098D.E37B9BD6@erols.com...
> 13 entries this round.
> 4 use POV-Ray.
> 1 uses Blender.
> The other eight all use some $$$ renderer.
> What gives?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Povray wrote:
>
> Thats simple..
>
> Helper applications. Automated plugins, etc..
>
> And most of all..
>
> 'Learning curve'
Yes, but once upon a time the IRTC was mostly POV-Ray.
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was wondering when someone would start posting Maya stuff, but I guess people
that work with Maya are to busy making movies, etc.
- Nekar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Somone did post using Maya- it wasn't in the top
animations for me, though.
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother? I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
> I was wondering when someone would start posting Maya stuff, but I
> guess people that work with Maya are to busy making movies, etc.
From what I understand, Maya is too expensive to be used on something
non$$$ like the IRTC. Then again, maybe they bootlegged it.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" wrote:
> Yes, but once upon a time the IRTC was mostly POV-Ray.
The quality and expectations of IRTC entries have raised a lot since then.
Doing advanced animation such as character animation in POV-Ray is not as
simple a task as in many other programs I think (though I'm not talking from
personal experience). However, as seen in p.b.a new techniques are being
worked on by many people, so if we're lucky there'll be lots of excellent
POV-Ray animations in the IRTC sometime in the future.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> 13 entries this round.
> 4 use POV-Ray.
> 1 uses Blender.
> The other eight all use some $$$ renderer.
> What gives?
First, I'm highly suspicious that I have often been competing against
portfolio dumps of pre-existing material from professional teams using
some $$$ renderer.
Second, I think that the judging tends to favor camera pans through
exhaustively boring and exhaustively photorealistic scenes that tell no
story. Better to tell absoluely no story at all than give the readers
something that requires some thinking.
Of course there are exceptions like Rusty, which is an icon, an epic of
IRTC.
These two claims are just sour-grapes from an opinionated old fart, but
this does make me feel less likely to invest my time in an IRTC
creation. I don't mean to disparage the winners but these are some of
the reaons I've been reluctant to participate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
>
> > 13 entries this round.
> > 4 use POV-Ray.
> > 1 uses Blender.
> > The other eight all use some $$$ renderer.
> > What gives?
>
> First, I'm highly suspicious that I have often been competing against
> portfolio dumps of pre-existing material from professional teams using
> some $$$ renderer.
Huh... I never felt this at all. Even the animation
which in my opinion had the best overall character
animation and story of all for IRTC doesn't strike me
as being done by a group of pros. As for the $$$
renderer- it just doesn't make much diff to me- being
experienced with POV/POLYray and now using AM for my
stuff, I know that the tool set doesn't assure the
final product by any means.
>
> Second, I think that the judging tends to favor camera pans through
> exhaustively boring and exhaustively photorealistic scenes that tell no
I know my judging doesn't. And the winning results
don't seem to support this.
> story. Better to tell absoluely no story at all than give the readers
> something that requires some thinking.
I vote heavily in favor of story and narrative combined
with a unified artistic vision.
>
> Of course there are exceptions like Rusty, which is an icon, an epic of
> IRTC.
>
> These two claims are just sour-grapes from an opinionated old fart, but
> this does make me feel less likely to invest my time in an IRTC
> creation. I don't mean to disparage the winners but these are some of
> the reaons I've been reluctant to participate.
That's too bad. But what do you mean you don't want to
disparage the winners... in going over the past winners
for the entire contest a significant portion are POV
entries. I'd suggest you concentrate on a good
narrative, a cohesive effort, and supportive visuals
and enter again- *I* (for one judge) WILL reward such
entries with high scores.
-peter
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother? I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just to restate my sour grapes, it's that my heroes using povray sometimes
place much lower than the team-using-3DS-on-a-two-year-project. The guys who
are generating a quality of work that is just like what I am *trying* to
accomplish sometimes don't do as well as those with completely different
visions, and this makes me less likely to try an entry at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In fact, if we give the exact same scene made of triangle meshes to
POV-Ray,
> most people will probably be quite suprised how fast POV-Ray renders it.
> POV-Ray can be incredibly fast when rendering triangle meshes. I have gone
> up to more than 30 millions of triangles in a scene, and POV-Ray renders
it
> in about 1 minute (800x600, antialiasing, three light sources). A scanline
> renderer couldn't do much better.
I guess this probably going to be quite a dumb thing to say as I know
nothing about the mathematics of raytracing, but if this is the case
wouldn't it be possible to write a pre-processing algorithm that converted
all the CSG objects into triangle meshes?
Is it the parsing that takes the time on complicated scenes? I found that
the two things that slow my renders down to walking pace were many object
(300,000 blobs in one scene) and media... I'm guessing the later is due to
excessive computational times for particle interactions and the former is
simply a bounding consideration? Would these be quicker as meshes?
Regards,
Luke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Luke Church <luk### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: I guess this probably going to be quite a dumb thing to say as I know
: nothing about the mathematics of raytracing, but if this is the case
: wouldn't it be possible to write a pre-processing algorithm that converted
: all the CSG objects into triangle meshes?
Firstly, it's a very complicated and slow thing to do.
Secondly, the speed of the primitives doesn't help too much when you have
complicated textures, reflection and refraction, radiosity...
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Secondly, the speed of the primitives doesn't help too much when you have
> complicated textures, reflection and refraction, radiosity...
It does. Even a simple glass is much much quicker to render (with
caustics,...) if it's a mesh instead of a lathe or CSG. If I wanted
to do a scene of, say, a shelf full of empty bottles, I would do
the bottles with meshes.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
