Andreas Kreisig wrote:
>Slashdolt wrote:
>> I'm not sure if people simply don't notice, aren't sure what to do about
>> it,
>> or run out of time, or what.  I feel like we need a phrase similar to,
>> "Location! Location! Location!" (Textures! Textures! Textures!).  Anyone
>> can create a box, but creating a box with a 3-layer texture and some sort
>> of
>> normal plus a great finish can really pull it into reality.  So many
>> images could become incredible images if people would simply spend more
>> time on the textures.
>
>In my opinion POV-Ray needs more features regarding textures similar to
>other 3D applications like alpha maps, specularity maps (!!) or image based
>displacement mapping. The textures in POV-Rays include files are powerfull
>but in most cases not very realistic. Or you have not enough control about
>them, e.g. if you need rust or specularity only on special areas. In this
>cases you actually need an image map so that you can define these areas
>exactly.

The most disappointing aspect of the IRTC is how so many great images are
let down by plain, or even non-existant, textures. I'm not sure it's a lack
of tools (though I wish I could layer over a patterned texture!).

POV-Ray has a good number of texturing tools, and if you spend enough time
at it you can get wonderful results. But it does take a lot of time (to
learn and to use). POV-Ray could use better starting points than the
terrible include files that often send you in the wrong direction. The IRTC
zip files provide a resource for good textures, though not organized for
quick access.

Also, I think artistic visual ability is required to "see" an object clearly
to know what texturing it needs. Photographic references help, but a simple
change of lighting can make a reference subtly wrong. One of the most
disappointing aspects of textures is how they almost always have to be
massaged for scale, position and lighting, so simply reusing a texture is
almost never good enough.

Post a reply to this message