For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
good for rendering. Don't forget that the
quality of an image depend strongly on the 
capabilities of the artist and not only on
the capabilities of the software :).

Fabian.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'willi1.jpg' (99 KB)

Preview of image 'willi1.jpg'

While I do not argue that the artist that made this image is talented, in fact
I think he must me amazingly talented, given that this is one of the most
realistic images I have scene. Remember the resources these guys are drawing
from, I bet that most if not all of the texturing in that image was done with
image maps taken from real world objects, real photo of moss on old wood,
picture of real bricks, etc.., add that with the complicated masking abilities
of Max and you can create some amazingly realistic stuff with a minimum of
effort, though you still have to be REALLY good to do as good as this guy has
done. I know because I have some experience with working with 3DS MAX. I once
did an image of a leave, I went out into my garden, picked a leaf, came home
scanned and scanned it in. Then I just made a Gray scale of the leaf for a
bump map, use a silhouette for a mask and used the leaf itself as the image
map. I had an amazingly realistic leaf in about 20 mins. The textures really
make this image, I'd say almost 90% of the impact of the image is the
textures. In Pov-Ray on the other hand we are working with procedural
textures, I don't think you can compare the 2 fairly.

Fabian BRAU wrote:

> For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> quality of an image depend strongly on the
> capabilities of the artist and not only on
> the capabilities of the software :).
>
> Fabian.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

--
Come visit my web site:-) : http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/

Post a reply to this message

Imagine how great it would look if it was done in POV!

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake a écrit :
> 
> While I do not argue that the artist that made this image is talented, in fact
> I think he must me amazingly talented, given that this is one of the most
> realistic images I have scene. Remember the resources these guys are drawing
> from, I bet that most if not all of the texturing in that image was done with
> image maps taken from real world objects, real photo of moss on old wood,
> picture of real bricks, etc.., 

has every profesionnal do :). This is a very good way to get realistic
picture but this is obviously not enough. All your object need to be
blend correctly in your images. Radiosity help a lot on this point.

> dd that with the complicated masking abilities
> of Max and you can create some amazingly realistic stuff with a minimum of
> effort,

Usually people says that Max dosn't give realistic result :).

>  though you still have to be REALLY good to do as good as this guy has
> done. I know because I have some experience with working with 3DS MAX. I once
> did an image of a leave, I went out into my garden, picked a leaf, came home
> scanned and scanned it in. Then I just made a Gray scale of the leaf for a
> bump map, use a silhouette for a mask and used the leaf itself as the image
> map. I had an amazingly realistic leaf in about 20 mins. The textures really
> make this image, I'd say almost 90% of the impact of the image is the
> textures. In Pov-Ray on the other hand we are working with procedural
> textures, I don't think you can compare the 2 fairly.

I use Pov-Ray a lot (this is the only renderer I use) and I use almost
exclusively images maps and now with uvmapping, all is ok with that.
So on this point you can compare :). Moreover, in this image there
no real difficult thing to model. This can be done in Pov. And
perhaps one can get this veru good result. 
I just post this image to says that with 3dsmax (and with all
commercial software) on can get amazing result (some Pov-Ray 
user still doubt about it :)). And Moreover commercial
software offer facilities to get very good result very quickly
(fast modeling, fast rendering but expensive :))

Fabian.

> 
> Fabian BRAU wrote:
> 
> > For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> > good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> > quality of an image depend strongly on the
> > capabilities of the artist and not only on
> > the capabilities of the software :).
> >
> > Fabian.
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]
> 
> --
> Come visit my web site:-) : http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/

Post a reply to this message

Yes better than with a Nikon :).

Fabian.

Halbert a écrit :
> 
> Imagine how great it would look if it was done in POV!

Post a reply to this message

AWSOME ROLEX!!!
sorry it had to be done.. :-(


"Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:398FC4A2.AB25CF37@umh.ac.be...
> For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> quality of an image depend strongly on the
> capabilities of the artist and not only on
> the capabilities of the software :).
>
> Fabian.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Sorry I don't understand :(

Fabian.

Ian Witham a écrit :
> 
> AWSOME ROLEX!!!
> sorry it had to be done.. :-(
> 
> "Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
> news:398FC4A2.AB25CF37@umh.ac.be...
> > For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> > good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> > quality of an image depend strongly on the
> > capabilities of the artist and not only on
> > the capabilities of the software :).
> >
> > Fabian.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----

Post a reply to this message

Quite some time ago (last year?) someone posted
a pic to this newsgroup which eventually turned
out to be a photograph. The subject of the posting
was AWSOME ROLEX. So it has become sort of synonym
for "faked render" (i.e. "actually it's a photo").

-Hans-

Fabian BRAU wrote:
> 
> Sorry I don't understand :(
> 
> Fabian.
> 
> Ian Witham a écrit :
> >
> > AWSOME ROLEX!!!
> > sorry it had to be done.. :-(
> >
> > "Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
> > news:398FC4A2.AB25CF37@umh.ac.be...
> > > For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> > > good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> > > quality of an image depend strongly on the
> > > capabilities of the artist and not only on
> > > the capabilities of the software :).
> > >
> > > Fabian.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----

Post a reply to this message

"Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:398FEFA6.413541D5@umh.ac.be...
> Sorry I don't understand :(

sorry-- "AWSOME ROLEX" roughly translated means  "this image looks far to
good to have been done in POV"-- I know it was done in 3DS Max, I was just
making a lame lame joke :-(

Post a reply to this message

No problem :) I unserstand now!

To be honest, when you look the others pics on the site of this guy,
you can see that this 3d picsand not photos. But I agree for this
one this is really really difficult to see!
(I even not sure that this is not a photo! who knows)

But I have others for which I am sure that this is not a photo
Simply go to 

http://www.newtek.com/products/frameset_lightwave.html

a select gallery (there are four galleries).
Particulary look the public toilet picture : amazing!!

Fabian.

Ian Witham a écrit :
> 
> "Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
> news:398FEFA6.413541D5@umh.ac.be...
> > Sorry I don't understand :(
> 
> sorry-- "AWSOME ROLEX" roughly translated means  "this image looks far to
> good to have been done in POV"-- I know it was done in 3DS Max, I was just
> making a lame lame joke :-(

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:04:16 +0200, Hans-Detlev Fink
<hdf### [at] pecosno-spamde> wrote:

>Quite some time ago (last year?) someone posted
>a pic to this newsgroup which eventually turned
>out to be a photograph. The subject of the posting
>was AWSOME ROLEX. So it has become sort of synonym
>for "faked render" (i.e. "actually it's a photo").

Actually what Nicolas did was to post someone's render of yet someone
else's model of a watch and then claim all the credits for himseld,
hand-coding every detail and all that. He was surprisingly reluctant
to share the source, though :)


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

This is true, it takes an artist to get something really good, but admittedly,
the software will play a part. I can take Bryce 1 and get a really nice sunset
and it will take all of five minutes. To do it in POV-Ray takes  a lot longer
because there is a much more challenging learning curve than in Bryce. The
sample image you posted is impressive, yes, but my questions involve how the
thing was made. Are those bricks an image map? Are they a plug in someone
other than the artist devised? How much of the image was made by the computer
and how much was actually made by the artist?

Josh

Fabian BRAU wrote:

> For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> quality of an image depend strongly on the
> capabilities of the artist and not only on
> the capabilities of the software :).
>
> Fabian.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritonecom
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/

Post a reply to this message

What seems to make a big difference here is the radiosity, Giles' 
recent tests with radiosity come very close to this, and he wasn't
even trying to produce realistic scenes as such just realistic
radiosity. 

This is the type of image I had hoped we were going to see back in
the Gardens round of the IRTC, but for some reason everyone wanted
their garden to look unrealisticly clean and tidy, nobody came close
to this.  

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  2:31pm  up 24 days, 12:57,  2 users,  load average: 2.15, 2.08, 2.02

Post a reply to this message

Josh English wrote:

> This is true, it takes an artist to get something really good, but admittedly,
> the software will play a part. I can take Bryce 1 and get a really nice sunset
> and it will take all of five minutes. To do it in POV-Ray takes  a lot longer
> because there is a much more challenging learning curve than in Bryce. The
> sample image you posted is impressive, yes, but my questions involve how the
> thing was made. Are those bricks an image map? Are they a plug in someone
> other than the artist devised? How much of the image was made by the computer
> and how much was actually made by the artist?

Precisely. Now I'm not saying a really good 3DS artist doesn't put a lot of effort
into a really good image, nor am I saying that POV invariably makes better
pictures. What I'm saying is that some people pirate the fancy software and have
the computer make half a scene for them, then claim they have some kind of special
talent that most POVers lack.

--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message

> a select gallery (there are four galleries).
> Particulary look the public toilet picture : amazing!!

You're right that is an amazing picture but there seems to be something odd
about the shape of the urinals and the dividing walls, they seem out of
proportion, too thick, this unfortunately destroys the photo quality of it. Of
course this could have been exactly what the artist was going for?

>
> Fabian.
>
> Ian Witham a écrit :
> >
> > "Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
> > news:398FEFA6.413541D5@umh.ac.be...
> > > Sorry I don't understand :(
> >
> > sorry-- "AWSOME ROLEX" roughly translated means  "this image looks far to
> > good to have been done in POV"-- I know it was done in 3DS Max, I was just
> > making a lame lame joke :-(

--
Come visit my web site:-) : http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/

Post a reply to this message

Are there bricks that have that particular angle for non-90 degree corners?
:-)
I believe this belongs in the povray.off-topic group.

P.S.... 3DS envy!

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Gee !!!!!!
If I can take back what I said about 3DSMAX, I will.
It's the first time I have seen such realistic pictures rendered with it.

Fabien


Fabian BRAU a écrit :

> For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> quality of an image depend strongly on the
> capabilities of the artist and not only on
> the capabilities of the software :).
>
> Fabian.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Here is a link if you ever lack inspiration :........

http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/ag-ii1.html

Fabien

Fabian BRAU a écrit :

> For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> quality of an image depend strongly on the
> capabilities of the artist and not only on
> the capabilities of the software :).
>
> Fabian.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

I went and checked out the link Fabien left:
http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/ag-ii1.html
Very impressive stuff!  Makes me a little jealous actually... wish I were so
good!

--
Doug Eichenberg
http://www.nls.net/douge
dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

Josh English a écrit :
> 
> This is true, it takes an artist to get something really good, but admittedly,
> the software will play a part. I can take Bryce 1 and get a really nice sunset
> and it will take all of five minutes. To do it in POV-Ray takes  a lot longer
> because there is a much more challenging learning curve than in Bryce. The
> sample image you posted is impressive, yes, but my questions involve how the
> thing was made. Are those bricks an image map?

Certainly, like almost all the textures in the scene I think.
Professional use
only procedurial (shader) texture for glass, water (actually almost all
transparent texture), sometime sky (this is the case in Riven), for
some metal texture, fire (not always), glowing effect, etc.... But for 
wood, rock, brick etc... this is almost always image map. 
But personally I don't see the problem. If you want to make "photo 
realistic" (this is not the goal of everyone) picture, it doesn't matter 
the technic you use to get the result : all technic is ok if the result
is good. 
And this is more easy with image map, but you need to be able to work on 
this image, this is sometime a lot of work:

1) make the photo
2) scan the photo (if this is not a digital one)
3) make it seamless (you need to know the technics)
4) correct the quality in photoshop (not always "easy"), etc...

Fabian.

Post a reply to this message

I have already see several example but I agree this is very
very rare :)!

Fabian.

Fabien Hénon a écrit :
> 
> Gee !!!!!!
> If I can take back what I said about 3DSMAX, I will.
> It's the first time I have seen such realistic pictures rendered with it.
> 
> Fabien
> 
> Fabian BRAU a écrit :
> 
> > For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> > good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> > quality of an image depend strongly on the
> > capabilities of the artist and not only on
> > the capabilities of the software :).
> >
> > Fabian.
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]

Post a reply to this message