 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have been using Flash and Authorware a lot lately. Both use a version of
JavaScript and I am finding it to be a real nice language. The thought that
hit me was that one of POVRay's strongest features is the SDL. The only
thing I would like to see added is object classes and an expanded material
coding ability with the strength of renderman shader language but still
apart of the SDL structure. The function tools may be enough but I have not
learned how to use them. After these two additions the SDL could be what
the pov team uses for financing. For all companies using the SDL for
modelers or even other commercial raytracers a license fee could be levied.
If the tool is free then no fee would be required. I really think the POV
SDL is better then RIB and could be the next standard. Its power is the
fact it is programming.
Just a thought.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m1j wrote:
> I have been using Flash and Authorware a lot lately. Both use a version of
> JavaScript and I am finding it to be a real nice language. The thought that
> hit me was that one of POVRay's strongest features is the SDL. The only
> thing I would like to see added is object classes and an expanded material
> coding ability with the strength of renderman shader language but still
> apart of the SDL structure.
You are mixing up two things here - the language design and the program
features.
> The function tools may be enough but I have not
> learned how to use them. After these two additions the SDL could be what
> the pov team uses for financing. For all companies using the SDL for
> modelers or even other commercial raytracers a license fee could be levied.
> If the tool is free then no fee would be required.
Just to make sure - there will be no usage restrictions for use of
current SDL or any future versions, that would be quite ridiculous, a
bit like requesting a fee from everyone who wants to speak a certain
language.
What might be interesting and useful (but i am not sure if practicable)
is to license a future POV-SDL parser for use in 3rd party programs.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> m1j wrote:
> > I have been using Flash and Authorware a lot lately. Both use a version of
> > JavaScript and I am finding it to be a real nice language. The thought that
> > hit me was that one of POVRay's strongest features is the SDL. The only
> > thing I would like to see added is object classes and an expanded material
> > coding ability with the strength of renderman shader language but still
> > apart of the SDL structure.
>
> You are mixing up two things here - the language design and the program
> features.
Would not the program features reflect on the language design and
vice-versus?
>
> > The function tools may be enough but I have not
> > learned how to use them. After these two additions the SDL could be what
> > the pov team uses for financing. For all companies using the SDL for
> > modelers or even other commercial raytracers a license fee could be levied.
> > If the tool is free then no fee would be required.
>
> Just to make sure - there will be no usage restrictions for use of
> current SDL or any future versions, that would be quite ridiculous, a
> bit like requesting a fee from everyone who wants to speak a certain
> language.
Funny I feel the same way but the licensing of interface and scripting
language seems common in modern software marketing. Example: Sun Java vs.
MS Java.
Two things I was thinking of: one, help the povteam by providing a possible
source of funds; two, draw some attention to POVRAY and POV SDL by moving
it towards being a standard. This last idea is strengthen by making some
part of POVRAY commercial. Like the company I work for, POVRay would not be
an option because it is free. I know this is very illogical but companies
seem to think software is only good if it cost too much money. I did not
want to see POVRay become commercial but thought the SDL could in part be
used this way. In truth I prefer it like you stated. All free all of the
time. That is what makes POVRay so great. I tell people about POVRay I get
strange looks. They can not believe a free program can do so much.
I would still like to see the SDL as a standard for 3D activity. It is
almost there.
>
> What might be interesting and useful (but i am not sure if practicable)
> is to license a future POV-SDL parser for use in 3rd party programs.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
> HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____.//^>_*_<^/.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m1j wrote:
>
> Would not the program features reflect on the language design and
> vice-versus?
No, the only relation that exists here is that a powerful language makes
some higher level program features unnecessary.
>
> Funny I feel the same way but the licensing of interface and scripting
> language seems common in modern software marketing. Example: Sun Java vs.
> MS Java.
This is not about licensing use of a language, this is about MS creating
a different, incompatible language and advertising it under the same,
protected name.
> Two things I was thinking of: one, help the povteam by providing a possible
> source of funds; two, draw some attention to POVRAY and POV SDL by moving
> it towards being a standard.
The idea that you could increase the popularity of a language by
disallowing its use does not require any comment IMO...
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> The idea that you could increase the popularity of a language by
> disallowing its use does not require any comment IMO...
I believe m1j has a point. I think there's a widespread idea in the
high-end world that just because POV is free, it's junk. This is
obviously untrue. Think about it: in every high-end graphics gallery
you've seen, whether community or personal, how many POV images have you
seen? I, for one, have never seen a single image. And I've looked.
Why is this? Of course it's not because POV is not easy to just pick up
and churn out a beautiful picture. Alias sells a whole shelf's worth of
books with the pure purpose of teaching one to use Maya. I think POV is
easier than that.
I'm open to other reasons, but I think m1j nailed it: corps and
mainstream high-end artists think that it's worthless because there's no
price tag specifically designed to blow holes in their socks.
I have not gotten into the SDL yet but I would be reluctant to portion
that off to sell - too many people have used it and have dependent
scenes to make that practical. I am saying that it is probably
worthwhile to create something, whether it's an SDL parser like
Christoph mentioned or maybe some features more aimed at large
companies, that could be sold. Or whatever - but something to put a
price on it. That's what a lot of people want to see when they're
shopping for their workflow.
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Thorn wrote:
> Think about it: in every high-end graphics gallery you've
> seen, whether community or personal, how many POV images have you
> seen? I, for one, have never seen a single image. And I've looked.
Make an image of "high-end" quality with POV-Ray, and no one would
hesitate to put your image in such a gallery. It's not my standard nor
probably yours, but I know exactly the standard to which you are
referring with "high end". No such POV images exist.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Thorn wrote:
>
>> The idea that you could increase the popularity of a language by
>> disallowing its use does not require any comment IMO...
>
> I believe m1j has a point. I think there's a widespread idea in the
> high-end world that just because POV is free, it's junk.
No. If you make such extreme assumptions support them with examples or
refrain from posting them. I am quite sure though you are not able to
give any real examples for this. Depending on how you define 'high-end
world' there are various reasons why POV-Ray does not play an important
role there - POV-Ray as a whole or the SDL being free has no negative
influence in any case.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Make an image of "high-end" quality with POV-Ray, and no one would
> hesitate to put your image in such a gallery. It's not my standard nor
> probably yours, but I know exactly the standard to which you are
> referring with "high end". No such POV images exist.
Personally, I would classify most of the HOF as "high end" quality. It
may be just me, but I've looked at a lot of images done with 3DS Max,
Maya, Cinema4D, Lightwave, etc, and IMO the images in the HOF are of the
same caliber. For example:
http://povray.org/community/hof/office-13.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/bonsai.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/Villarceau_Circles-CSG.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/boltstill3.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/alchlab-big.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/patio.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/6b.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/16b.php
http://povray.org/community/hof/Frgotbig.php
I'm not immortal and I've been known to be wrong (a lot of the time).
And Chris, I don't mean to make a blanket generalization statement and
say that it's absolutely true that the only reason we don't see POV used
in CGI houses is because it's free - like I said, I'm open to other
reasons. It's just my personal opinion that it plays a tremendous part.
:) I apologize if this wasn't clear.
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Thorn wrote:
> I'm open to other reasons, but I think m1j nailed it: corps and
> mainstream high-end artists think that it's worthless because there's no
> price tag specifically designed to blow holes in their socks.
>
No I must disagree. The high-end programs support so much that is
necessary for collaborative, production work that your line of thinking
is off base. Ambitious artists are going to show their talents on
commercial production tools naturally, but I realize you understand that
part. But POV does not get ignored because it is free. It is simply
not a tool for collaborative production work. And I could think of more
reasons. Like that when you want to tap into a talent pool, as an
employer, you also have to keep an eye to what that talent pool is
trained to do. And I don't just me a particular interface, but a whole
range of technical norms like shaders and texture mapping for instance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Thorn wrote:
> I believe m1j has a point. I think there's a widespread idea in the
> high-end world that just because POV is free, it's junk.
I think slow speed of renders that can be done relatively quickly with
corner cutting in mainstream applications has more to do with it. Pure
raytracing is hopelessly inefficient, relegating POV to hobbyists and
specialized applications where other methods are too cumbersome.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
