 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What is a scanline render, and why are they suspect in the IRTC - I did a
search on the web, and as far as I can tell, it is a quick form of
rendering, but I don't understand why this counts against the artist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Scanline covers a family of rendering algorithms, different from the the
raytracing one, and faster. Its lower rendering quality is compensated by all
sorts of clever tricks that make the final image as good it should be
(opinions differ on this). Most professional rendering tools like 3DS are
basically scanline, so it may have been thought unfair to use heavy, costly
tools against freeware like pov, and, since the "R" in IRTC stands for
raytracing, I guess it could be also thought to be against the rules.
However, 3DS and other pro tools now also use ray-tracing when its needed, so
there was no reason to exclude particular algorithms, and, after all, POV and
other freeware now compare well with professional tools (in term of final
output, not ease of use or speed).
G.
Tom Melly wrote:
> What is a scanline render, and why are they suspect in the IRTC - I did a
> search on the web, and as far as I can tell, it is a quick form of
> rendering, but I don't understand why this counts against the artist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
But is it easier for the artist to set up an effective picture? Can they in
some way "cheat".
Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapg inrafr> wrote in message
news:3874C9D0.D8C5C8F4@inapg.inra.fr...
> Scanline covers a family of rendering algorithms, different from the the
> raytracing one, and faster. Its lower rendering quality is compensated by
all
> sorts of clever tricks that make the final image as good it should be
> (opinions differ on this). Most professional rendering tools like 3DS are
> basically scanline, so it may have been thought unfair to use heavy,
costly
> tools against freeware like pov, and, since the "R" in IRTC stands for
> raytracing, I guess it could be also thought to be against the rules.
> However, 3DS and other pro tools now also use ray-tracing when its needed,
so
> there was no reason to exclude particular algorithms, and, after all, POV
and
> other freeware now compare well with professional tools (in term of final
> output, not ease of use or speed).
>
> G.
>
> Tom Melly wrote:
>
> > What is a scanline render, and why are they suspect in the IRTC - I did
a
> > search on the web, and as far as I can tell, it is a quick form of
> > rendering, but I don't understand why this counts against the artist.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> But is it easier for the artist to set up an effective picture? Can they in
> some way "cheat".
I'm no specialist in pro rendering software, but from what I understand, they
are very efficient in term of ease of use and speed, and they come bundled with
whole libraries of objects, textures, not to mention a large variety of
plug-ins. Things that would take hours to set up in pov can be done very
quickly, and because raytracing is often used only when it's needed (reflection
or refraction I guess), they're much faster (which means more time for tests
etc.).
Is it cheating ? I don't think so, because the fact that they are efficient
doesn't mean that you don't have to work a lot on a picture to get it right. The
latest IRTC "Stills" winner was a 3DS pic and when you compare it to pics from
3DS beginners you can see that a lot of work went into it and that its 1st place
was well deserved IMHO. In the present round, creating realistic plants with
NURBS is not little feat either.
In terms of output, POV, particularly in its latest flavours (uv mapping,
isosurfaces, improved radiosity, photon patch...) can do high quality stuff. We
even start seeing 3DS users sniffing around in the French pov group for that
reason. It just may take more time, sweat and tears from POV users, but since
the IRTC is about quality, not time-efficiency (something valued at professional
level), having both POV and 3DS competing is not unfair to POV. The only thing
that bugs me a little is that there is a lot of bootleg copies of the 3DS around
so I can't help seeing some "cheating" here, but I certainly don't want to be
moralistic and it has nothing to do with one's talent.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>What is a scanline render, and why are they suspect in the IRTC - I did a
search on the web, and as far as I can tell, it is a quick form of
rendering, but I don't understand why this counts against the artist.
Tom,
I raised a question (recently) about scanline renderers simply because they
are not raytracers and the IRTC stands for the Internet *R*ay*t*racing
Competition -- somewhat akin to entering acrylics in an oil-painting
contest. It's not that one is bad or good, easy or hard -- just that
acrylics are not oils.
However, the lines between the two (scanline and raytracing) are blurring
becuase the scanline renderers are incorporating raytracing into their
engines.
As to whether or not it is cheating to use a scanline renderer? Absolutely
not. Here's the question/answer from the IRTC FAQ that was pointed out to
me when I raised the same issue:
[1.1.9] Can I use a scan-line renderer instead of a ray tracer? How about
one that uses some other rendering technique?
Yes, all algorithms are welcome. The quality should be equivalent to modern
ray tracers, though, or your image will compare badly with the other
entries. Note--we do not consider photocopying or paint programs to be
"renderers". The image should be generated by a computer, algorithmically.
Claire
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many thanks to all for the clarifications - the bottom line seems to be that
good looking images take skill whatever the rendering package used.
I started this thread because some comments about scanline renders made me
suspect that something v. fishy was going on - for example extrapolating,
with some guidance from the artist, a 3d image from a scanned photo or such
like.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandluforce9couk> wrote:
: But is it easier for the artist to set up an effective picture?
I think that the difficulty of making a good image is more dependant on the
modeller used, not in the rendering technique.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> I started this thread because some comments about scanline renders made me
> suspect that something v. fishy was going on - for example extrapolating,
> with some guidance from the artist, a 3d image from a scanned photo or such
> like.
Note that there are 2 packages I know of that just do this : one is
Metacreations' Canoma and the other is Photomodeller
(http://www.eossystems.com/Lite/). I've tried both demos and it's quite a
lengthy and strenuous process... I've even imported Photomodeller 2d->3D models
in POV.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
