clipka wrote:

>> 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
n 
> 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
> 
	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!)

>  > 
> http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=Animations_Ju
ly-October2000_earlyfly.mpg 
> 
> 
> I would actually consider this a totally wrong choice of tools (and thu
s 
> 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
e 
> 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 
animation.

> 
> 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
e 
> 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
t 
> 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:
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=StillImages_Nov
ember-December1998_ac5Fvs5Feb.jpg

	It doesn't look like a photograph and it doesn't try to. But how 
would you do it without 3D rendering?

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)