 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> "Hildur K." <hil### [at] 3dcafemailevery1net> wrote:
> > algorithm really is. Can I put it on my pasta?
>
> Not a good idea. You might end up with...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_programming
>
> ;-)
Great! :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message
news:4a37676f@news.povray.org...
> I must admit that if the main(?) focus of the IRTC is the technical focus,
> then I sadly loose interest. I thought that the IRTC was a platform to
> create (and show) beautiful images through ray-tracing, whatever the
> technical background.
I quite agree, I wasn't trying to argue for a more technical focus, I was
just pointing out that the unique combination of rules (which are mostly
technical in nature) is the reason the IRTC has attracted it's particular
fan-base, and that any change (towards less rules, or for that matter more
rules) will make it something us IRTC devotees are less interested in.
Now, if at some future point the IRTC community were to be dwindling and the
project seemed like it was only appealing to an ever smaller group of
fanatics, then perhaps some adjustment would be justified. But I think this
new IRTC should be given a fair chance before anyone goes changing the
rules.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> And overall, it becomes difficult to define what is
> meant by "the same amount of change".
Allow change C:Image->Image if there exists f:RGB->RGB
with f(I(x,y))) = C(I)(x,y) for each location (x,y)?
But to rescue anti-aliasing it would need to be extended
to small neighborhoods instead of individual pixels ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Yes. It's the direct output of the rendering software, not the direct
> output of Photoshop or Gimp.
Hmm, suppose someone patches the graphics windows of POV-Ray
so you can do editing there like you could in Gimp ... would it
be output from rendering software? If not, in what way would
it be different from implementing a post-processing step
which is inherently 2d such as the above AA algorithm?
Sorry can't help playing devils advocate here ;)
I agree that not all post-processing should be allowed, and I
couldn't get decent results out of a 2d paint program anyway.
It just feels to me that the criterion "was touched with
photoshop" = "bad" and "direct result of rendering software
which also supports 3d" = "good" may be too simple.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Now my personal sentiments are more aligned with Warp's. There is an
> intuitive purity to drawing the line at single-pass rendering with a ray
> tracer, using the ray tracer only, with no post-processing.
Despite everything I posted to the contrary, I fully agree
with that. But I think that's the viewpoint of us people drawn
in from the technical side. If I wanted to make a great digital
image I would buy a camera ;) the fascinating part for me is
that you get results from some code snippets. But it would
just hamper the artists.
Maybe the IRTC should allow tagging a submission as "purist".
That would be restricted to images created using an officially
released version of a raytracer, using pure code, no modeller,
no external data files, no image maps, no multipass renders, and
of course absolutely no post-processing except jpg conversion.
Source code would be mandatory for purist images and the highest
ranking purist image gets an honorable mention ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hildur K. wrote:
> The bottom line is that people using Povray should be very eager to change the
> many of advanced processes almost demand you to have a supercomputer. Give
You don't need a supercomputer, you just need a few spare weeks to render :)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christian Froeschlin" <chr### [at] chrfrde> schreef in bericht
news:4a396d14$1@news.povray.org...
> Maybe the IRTC should allow tagging a submission as "purist".
> That would be restricted to images created using an officially
> released version of a raytracer, using pure code, no modeller,
> no external data files, no image maps, no multipass renders, and
> of course absolutely no post-processing except jpg conversion.
> Source code would be mandatory for purist images and the highest
> ranking purist image gets an honorable mention ;)
LOL!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> Maybe the IRTC should allow tagging a submission as "purist".
> That would be restricted to images created using an officially
> released version of a raytracer, using pure code, no modeller,
> no external data files, no image maps, no multipass renders, and
> of course absolutely no post-processing except jpg conversion.
> Source code would be mandatory for purist images and the highest
> ranking purist image gets an honorable mention ;)
Now that's an idea I like! I too have always been most enthused by the idea of
'pure' code generating a beautiful image, and I often design scenes with this
philosophy. (I wonder, could my meshrelief macros be used to generate .inc
files for this scenario? It is a multi-parse, if not a multi-pass render...)
I don't necessarily think this idea should be implemented, but I like it ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a39217e@news.povray.org...
| news:4a391791@news.povray.org...
| > Gilles,
| >
| > Which 'open source'/freeware renderers best represent your
description
| > of a post ray tracing software ?
|
| Indigo, Kerkythea, LuxRender for instance. There's also Yafaray, which
is a
| "reboot" of Yafray. It's described as a raytracer but supports other
| rendering algorithms. Of course POV-Ray itself is also "post
raytracing"
| since it supports GI and photon mapping.
|
| G.
|
Indigo went commercial after 1.18
Can't see the price as their 'buy' link fails.
Kerkythea probably won't get much attention as the
develioers niw have a commercial business.
Looks like October 2008 was the last update.
LuxRender seems fairly young along the development
road.
Isn't Yafaray part of Blender now?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> Maybe the IRTC should allow tagging a submission as "purist".
> That would be restricted to images created using an officially
> released version of a raytracer, using pure code, no modeller,
Hmm... what if that particular raytracer had an integrated modeller??
And what would stop me from modelling a mesh in Wings3D, exporting it,
reformating it, and claiming that I'd hacked That Mesh2 Code up myself? Who the
* could tell (or rather, prove)?
> no external data files, no image maps, no multipass renders, and
> of course absolutely no post-processing except jpg conversion.
> Source code would be mandatory for purist images and the highest
> ranking purist image gets an honorable mention ;)
Yeah, but bloody likely nothing more than that :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
