|
 |
Nick Portelli wrote:
> Why are image maps so frowned upon in the POV community? Almost all of
> the big wig renderers use them solely.
It's my personal belief that when I'm rendering, I'm not trying to win a
race, or stick to rules, but just make a nice looking picture. If an
imagemap can produce good results (as the comments have shown), and it
suits my situation, then I will use an imagemap. If I need more
flexibility, then I will use procedural textures.
There are no correct and incorrect tools, merely tools that are, or aren't
suited to the job. There is nothing more honourable in using a penknife
when a chainsaw is better suited to the job, and vice-versa. Both have
their uses, and there is no reaosn for conflict.
Simon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"Nick Portelli" <por### [at] pilot msuedu> wrote in message
news:39A9A67D.29090A1A@pilot.msu.edu...
> Why are image maps so frowned upon in the POV community? Almost all of
> the big wig renderers use them solely.
>
It's not the image maps (a valid texturing process after all), but the
images (photos). Photographs should hold only a *very* minor role in any
rendering, particularly in the IRTC, where you want to set your work apart
from all the others. Image maps should be used *only* when nothing else will
do (as the Pov docs state). :)
There are a million valid uses for image maps, even in the IRTC. I would
not, however, use one as in this scene. I intend no offense upon Simon. I am
merely stating my opinion and advice.
Nothing says the big wig renderers are doing anything right. Those guys get
you hooked on image mapping, so they can sell you expensive texture
libraries. Thank the Pov gurus that you have procedural functionality!
Oops, inspiration has struck again. Ciao!
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
