> clipka wrote:
>> So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical 
>> merit is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible these 
>> days?"
>>
>     I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is 
> photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera and 
> shoot.

And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for an 
AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting 
something like this, for instance:

http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html

Yes, to me the ultimate goal in 3D rendering /is/ photorealism - to 
depict things that /are not/ real, in a way that they look /as if/ they 
were real.

(And while wrist watches do not fit this category, as you can indeed go 
and photograph one, I still consider even those valid subjects for 
raytracing: To learn how to make non-real things look real, you first 
need to learn how to make real things look real.)


 > To me, technical merit is "how well was technique used in the
> service of the concept and art?". If the concept calls for a comics 
> look, then the image will never be "convincing" no matter how good the 
> technical realisation. For example (okay, it's an animation, but the 
> principle is the same): 

 > 
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=Animations_July-October2000_earlyfly.mpg



I would actually consider this a totally wrong choice of tools (and thus 
a totally wrong concept for the competition).

If I want stuff like that, I probably try for a 2D toon animation 
package, not a 3D render software. The clip doesn't really make much use 
of any 3D features.


See the difference here?

You can render a non-real thing and make it look like a comic, but in 
that case you could just as well pick a 2D software and have a go at it 
- or even get out the good old ink and colors. You can render that same 
thing to look like an oil painting, but in that case you could just as 
well pick some brushes and have a go at it. You can render it in a way 
that it looks like an ink sketch, but in that case you can indeed just 
draw it with inks.

But make a non-real thing /look/ like a photograph, and you may /not/ be 
able to produce that shot any other way.

Therefore, the "native" style for 3D rendering /must/ be photorealism - 
not only because that's what it was invented for in the first place, but 
also because depicting non-real things in any other style can be 
achieved in other ways.

Post a reply to this message