I haven't been playing with the 3.5 beta because I'm really not much
of a beta tester at heart, and I don't usually like to put my computer
through the uninstall/reinstall loop of time-limited software.

I have a question, though, regarding the images from 3.5 I've seen
posted in p.b.i. -- they seem to be of higher quality than what I see
produced in 3.1.  The radiosity looks better, and the render just seem
to have a crisper, more realistic vibe.

So, has the POV engine - indpendant of the new featues such as
photons, etc - been that drastically enhanced in the render quality
department?  Or is this simply the by-product of top end users who are
most likely to beta test knowing how to tweak the scenes for optimum
prettiness?

I've never seen such pretty spheres on planes until 3.5 was released,
it makes me curious...


Thanks,

Angus

Post a reply to this message

Angus Mitchell wrote:

> I haven't been playing with the 3.5 beta because I'm really not much
> of a beta tester at heart, and I don't usually like to put my computer
> through the uninstall/reinstall loop of time-limited software.


It is not "time-limited", it is "date-limited".  You can't just 
reinstall it to get another 30 days of use.  Besides, new beta versions 
with new deadlines have always popped up in time.

> 
> I have a question, though, regarding the images from 3.5 I've seen
> posted in p.b.i. -- they seem to be of higher quality than what I see
> produced in 3.1.  The radiosity looks better, and the render just seem
> to have a crisper, more realistic vibe.
> 

> So, has the POV engine - indpendant of the new featues such as
> photons, etc - been that drastically enhanced in the render quality
> department?  Or is this simply the by-product of top end users who are
> most likely to beta test knowing how to tweak the scenes for optimum
> prettiness?
> 


Radiosity is a lot better, and forces you to use more realistic values 
for your finishes therefore giving your scenes an overall more realistic 
look.  But, apart from that, you are right, it's mostly tweaking of 
"old" features and a pinch of new features added for taste.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a orthographic}

Post a reply to this message

Angus Mitchell <none.provided.net> wrote:
: So, has the POV engine - indpendant of the new featues such as
: photons, etc - been that drastically enhanced in the render quality
: department?  Or is this simply the by-product of top end users who are
: most likely to beta test knowing how to tweak the scenes for optimum
: prettiness?

  AFAIK the core code is unchanged. The reason for the images looking better
than before is simple: People have learnt how to make better-looking images
with the same tool.

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On 10 Oct 2001 09:52:37 -0400, Warp wrote:
>Angus Mitchell <none.provided.net> wrote:
>: So, has the POV engine - indpendant of the new featues such as
>: photons, etc - been that drastically enhanced in the render quality
>: department?  Or is this simply the by-product of top end users who are
>: most likely to beta test knowing how to tweak the scenes for optimum
>: prettiness?
>
>  AFAIK the core code is unchanged. The reason for the images looking better
>than before is simple: People have learnt how to make better-looking images
>with the same tool.

The radiosity code has changed significantly.

-- 
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: The radiosity code has changed significantly.

  Yes, but I got the idea that he was talking about 3.5 images being in general
better-looking, and he mentioned radiosity as an example.
  Perhaps he was just talking about radiosity-images after all.

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On 10 Oct 2001 10:05:40 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>: The radiosity code has changed significantly.
>
>  Yes, but I got the idea that he was talking about 3.5 images being in general
>better-looking, and he mentioned radiosity as an example.

Correct.

>  Perhaps he was just talking about radiosity-images after all.

Not *just* radiosity, although that certainly looks improved.

I was speaking of the general crispness and "photorealism" of the 3.5
renders people are putting up in p.b.i. -- they just seem to be better
than what I've seen rendered in previous versions.


Angus

Post a reply to this message