POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.general : Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition Server Time
31 Oct 2024 19:28:43 EDT (-0400)
  Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition (Message 1 to 10 of 18)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 8 Messages >>>
From: Renderdog
Subject: Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition
Date: 30 May 2005 21:15:01
Message: <web.429bb9d767d922b9dd4295f50@news.povray.org>
Here:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/30/1716200&tid=152


Post a reply to this message

From: Slime
Subject: Re: Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition
Date: 30 May 2005 23:51:49
Message: <429bdf55@news.povray.org>
Interesting discussion. It seems like many (not all) of the people who say
that POV-Ray can't produce realistic images are the same ones who are aware
that it's a very old program; I wonder if their knowledge that it's an old
program (that was limited in its early days) is causing some bias?

Then there are a lot of people who say things like "Its a good render for
ray tracer but RAY TRACING IS OLD. Radiosity and stocastic renders are much
higher quality then this," who seem to believe that certain algorithms
equate to realistic images, hardly considering the influence of the artist's
skill level - and who aren't even aware that such algorithms are available
in POV-Ray. =)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]


Post a reply to this message

From: Tim Cook
Subject: Re: Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition
Date: 31 May 2005 00:30:41
Message: <429be871$1@news.povray.org>
Photorealism isn't about the renderer.  No program can create something 
that looks like a photo just by pushing two or three buttons.  Any 
program that can generate an image can be used to make something which 
is photorealistic if the time, effort, skill, and ability of the artist 
are enough.  Even with MS Paint (though that takes a bit more effort).

One thing the 'photorealistic' 3D graphics considered superior to POV 
have:  photo-based textures.

Another thing that irritates me is the attitude of "it's not 
bleeding-edge, therefore it's infinitely inferior".  :P

-- 
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

From: Slime
Subject: ... and Fark.com
Date: 31 May 2005 01:22:05
Message: <429bf47d$1@news.povray.org>
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1507984

(Was the submitter a member of these newsgroups, I wonder?)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]


Post a reply to this message

From: Slime
Subject: Re: ... and Fark.com
Date: 31 May 2005 01:23:49
Message: <429bf4e5@news.povray.org>
(Oh, actually, they just linked to the HoF.)

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]


Post a reply to this message

From: Renderdog
Subject: Re: ... and Fark.com
Date: 31 May 2005 02:50:00
Message: <web.429c081fb7e335dddd4295f50@news.povray.org>
Favorite comment:

My God, it's full of math.

Also a lot of these:

Darn... those are pretty impressive. Maybe I'll start learning...


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition
Date: 31 May 2005 04:21:51
Message: <pan.2005.05.31.08.21.51.458399@nospam.com>
On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:30:40 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> Another thing that irritates me is the attitude of "it's not
> bleeding-edge, therefore it's infinitely inferior".  :P

Feh, that's just /. mentality for you


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition
Date: 31 May 2005 09:06:24
Message: <429c6150@news.povray.org>
Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> Then there are a lot of people who say things like "Its a good render for
> ray tracer but RAY TRACING IS OLD. Radiosity and stocastic renders are much
> higher quality then this,"

  Yeah. If a rendering algorithm has existed for very long time, that
automatically means that it's old, obsolete and crap.

  Too bad this applies to radiosity as well. Depending on how you
define it, the radiosity algorithm can be dated back to the 1960s.
In fact, the theory is even older: The concept of "radiative transfer
theory", which is basically the radiosity algorithm, dates back to 1926.

  Thus: Radiosity is almost 80 years old, thus it's crap.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Ross
Subject: Re: Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition
Date: 31 May 2005 11:07:58
Message: <429c7dce$1@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:30:40 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> 
> 
>>Another thing that irritates me is the attitude of "it's not
>>bleeding-edge, therefore it's infinitely inferior".  :P
> 
> 
> Feh, that's just /. mentality for you

Agreed. It's funny how /. mentality works. Slashdot is a haven for open 
source and free software geeks, but every POV article, they always bash 
it by saying "X, Y, and Z is better" (usually Maya).

It also seems that the examples of "photorealistic" images that people 
linked to in the discussion were all using HDRI environments, which make 
the focus of the scene look realistic, but the background looks faked 
(too blurry).

alas... POV rocks. off i go.


Post a reply to this message

From: JYR
Subject: Re: Slashdot article on POV-Ray Competition
Date: 31 May 2005 11:30:01
Message: <web.429c8218271910186a3607400@news.povray.org>
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> In fact, the theory is even older: The concept of "radiative transfer
> theory", which is basically the radiosity algorithm, dates back to 1926.
>
>   Thus: Radiosity is almost 80 years old, thus it's crap.

Do you mean that before 1926, a torchiere with an opaque shade casting light
to the ceiling would only illuminate said ceiling, because the photons
weren't aware at that time that they had to bounce off the white surface
and light the whole room ?

;-P

JYR


Post a reply to this message

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 8 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.