I rendered all the scenes provided in POV-Ray 3.5 and I find that many
of the scenes date back to the early 90's.  There are very few scenes
that are artistic and really show off what POV-Ray can do these days.
It would be nice if the user community could contribute the source for
some of their best scenes to the POV-Ray distribution.  Even if you
could provide the scene file for the splash screen image.  I really like
that.  The .dat files provided are usually either quick tests (and
sometimes ugly) or very old.  Let's show what POV-Ray can really do.

David Buck
Simberon Inc.

Post a reply to this message

While being in the pre-beta testing groups I kind of was told that the demo
scenes were supposed to illustrate the features efficiently and that beauty
and nice design didn't mean that much. Only the scenes in the \advanced\
folder had art as the main purpose. And perhaps that's not such a bad idea -
I'm not sure.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're suggesting: Should we attempt to make the
feature demo scenes more artistic, or should we just increase the number of
scenes in the \advanced\ folder?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

For example, Fish13 really needs to be converted...


"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3b992cc4$1@news.povray.org...
> While being in the pre-beta testing groups I kind of was told that the
demo
> scenes were supposed to illustrate the features efficiently and that
beauty
> and nice design didn't mean that much. Only the scenes in the \advanced\
> folder had art as the main purpose. And perhaps that's not such a bad
idea -
> I'm not sure.
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure what you're suggesting: Should we attempt to make the
> feature demo scenes more artistic, or should we just increase the number
of
> scenes in the \advanced\ folder?
>
> Rune
> --
> 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
> POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
> POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
>
>

Post a reply to this message

And skies.inc too...

"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3b992f87@news.povray.org...
> For example, Fish13 really needs to be converted...
>
>
> "Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3b992cc4$1@news.povray.org...
> > While being in the pre-beta testing groups I kind of was told that the
> demo
> > scenes were supposed to illustrate the features efficiently and that
> beauty
> > and nice design didn't mean that much. Only the scenes in the \advanced\
> > folder had art as the main purpose. And perhaps that's not such a bad
> idea -
> > I'm not sure.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not sure what you're suggesting: Should we attempt to make
the
> > feature demo scenes more artistic, or should we just increase the number
> of
> > scenes in the \advanced\ folder?
> >
> > Rune
> > --
> > 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> > Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
> > POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
> > POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

David Buck wrote:

> Let's show what POV-Ray can really do.

The paradox is that our collective demand for really nice stuff is so high
that it's getting hard to make artistic images (of the wow! kind at least)
that can still fit in a regular Povray distribution, have acceptable
hardware requirements and render in acceptable times. For instance, I tried
to make a simple sunset-over-water image for "advanced" but while the
results were good I stopped working on it because the ridged multifractal
water would have made it impossibly slow for many users. Complex radiosity
scenes are also a problem : the two rad images in the "blocks" directory
already require more than 100 Mb of RAM to render at good quality.
Another example is the abyss.pov image : it looks better when the area light
is turned on but then the render time takes off.

One possible way, however, would be at least to "touch up" the present
scenes so that they look better but I don't know about the possible
copyright problems.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery

Post a reply to this message

What about a simple *photorealistic* object in a plane, and then a lighting
dome (sky_sphere) to make it look even better. It's a quite abused theme,
but it doesn't take too long to render and can make new pov users happier...
I have lots of scenes like this.

--
Jonathan

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3B993584.7F50A3AF@inapg.inra.fr...
> David Buck wrote:
>
> > Let's show what POV-Ray can really do.
>
> The paradox is that our collective demand for really nice stuff is so high
> that it's getting hard to make artistic images (of the wow! kind at least)
> that can still fit in a regular Povray distribution, have acceptable
> hardware requirements and render in acceptable times. For instance, I
tried
> to make a simple sunset-over-water image for "advanced" but while the
> results were good I stopped working on it because the ridged multifractal
> water would have made it impossibly slow for many users. Complex radiosity
> scenes are also a problem : the two rad images in the "blocks" directory
> already require more than 100 Mb of RAM to render at good quality.
> Another example is the abyss.pov image : it looks better when the area
light
> is turned on but then the render time takes off.
>
> One possible way, however, would be at least to "touch up" the present
> scenes so that they look better but I don't know about the possible
> copyright problems.
>
> G.
>
> --
>
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> Graphic experiments
> Pov-ray gallery
>
>

Post a reply to this message

H.M. "David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> could provide the scene file for the splash screen image.  I really like
> that.  The .dat files provided are usually either quick tests (and
> sometimes ugly) or very old.  Let's show what POV-Ray can really do.

 Your wishes are orders for me!

  But, I think as Rune that basic demo scenes must remain simple. I also
think that the /advanced folder can grow a bit. Anyhow, although I'm really
proud that H.M. likes the splash image, it is not really a good demo for
3.5, and not even for 3.1. If I remember well, it was 3.0 code, but I
translated it for the splash render to 3.5 pre-beta. Also, Gilles is
completely right, and "serious" scenes would require render times that
perhaps will discourage the new user. It's a great dilema...

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> H.M. "David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> > could provide the scene file for the splash screen image.  I really like
> > that.  The .dat files provided are usually either quick tests (and
> > sometimes ugly) or very old.  Let's show what POV-Ray can really do.
>
>  Your wishes are orders for me!
>
>   But, I think as Rune that basic demo scenes must remain simple. I also
> think that the /advanced folder can grow a bit. Anyhow, although I'm really
> proud that H.M. likes the splash image, it is not really a good demo for
> 3.5, and not even for 3.1. If I remember well, it was 3.0 code, but I
> translated it for the splash render to 3.5 pre-beta. Also, Gilles is
> completely right, and "serious" scenes would require render times that
> perhaps will discourage the new user. It's a great dilema...

I'm not suggesting removing anything.  Keep the feature demo scenes simple.  I
was thinking more along the lines of adding to the /advanced folder.  Maybe
even if we could have another folder for scenes that take longer to render but
are very impressive - maybe a "Hall Of Fame".  I realize that some of the
scenes are extremely large and are virtually impossible for typical machines to
render (for example, "Warm Up" by Norbert Kern (WOW!)).  But there are some
very nice examples that would showcase POV-Ray's abilities.

David Buck

Post a reply to this message

David Buck wrote:

> Maybeeven if we could have another folder for scenes that take longer to render
> but are very impressive - maybe a "Hall Of Fame".  I realize that some of the
> scenes are extremely large and are virtually impossible for typical machines to
> render (for example, "Warm Up" by Norbert Kern (WOW!)).  But there are some
> very nice examples that would showcase POV-Ray's abilities.

Actually it would be easier to have a revamped Hall of Fame on the Povray site, and
links to some of the best galleries provided with the software. This is what the
people who make Poser do, for instance. Bryce 5 comes bundled with images and a few
advanced files, but it's on a CD-ROM.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery

Post a reply to this message

JRG wrote:
> 
> For example, Fish13 really needs to be converted...

Fish13 WAS updated. It issued 100+ warning messages before I
cleaned it up. Unfortunately, I did not have time to go in and
add 15,000 commas and all of the other changes it needed before
the public release.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message