Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 20/07/2011 12:22 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> >    Although, to be fair, most (if not all) the rendering software that are
> > capable of rendering realistic-looking fur are using tricks to make it
> > look realistic instead of simulating what happens in real life
>
> ...which is kind of my point. You can't render and illuminate hundreds
> of thousands of complex shapes "directly". It's impossible. (Or at
> least, utterly infeasible.) The fact that so many people now do CGI hair
> means that somebody somewhere has found a way to fake it. I'm wondering
> if anybody knows what that is.

They are probably faking as much as povray is in not directly rendering millions
of grains of sand and cement comprising those infinte planes...

Post a reply to this message