>> 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 a
> AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting
> something like this, for instance:
Is is actually possible with a little work to make a photo similar
to what you're showing here. Just take a couple of plastic figurines
and with a little bit of work you can get anything. (Hell, just look
at the special effects of films from before the CG era!)
> I would actually consider this a totally wrong choice of tools (and thu
> 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 us
> of any 3D features.
Actually, it uses a lot of 3D features but in a very subtle way.
Doing small movements not parallel to the image plane is nearly
impossible in a 2D toon animation package (in practice if not in
theory) because they require completely redrawing *everything* at
each frame. Yet those kind of movements add a lot to the feel of the
> 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/ b
> 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, bu
> also because depicting non-real things in any other style can be
> achieved in other ways.
Then look at this image by the same author:
It doesn't look like a photograph and it doesn't try to. But how
would you do it without 3D rendering?
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)