 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] hotmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
