WinOSI ?

Blender's renderer and external renderer export

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

matt_e
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby matt_e » Mon Dec 09, 2002 4:20 am

I think what he's saying is that a renderer that works in such a way is the most physically accurate. Yes, it's possible to fake things using certain techniques in software pacakges to make things look photorealistic, but that's not the point of this particular renderer - the point is to make something that exactly mimics the way that real life works, out of the box.

Sure winOSI may be slow and unweildy and inferior to other artists' solutions, but that doesn't matter to these guys. I think it's more along the lines of (for example) industrial car crash simulation software vs. dynamic simulations in Maya. The industrial simulators are very very accurate, but not very useful to make movies with. Maya's dynamics can be used in a way that looks excellent, but is not necessarily totally physically accurate. I think the winOSI guys are striving for physical accuracy over artistic utility.

green wrote:""""""""""""""
It is theoretically possible to render a scene photorealistically with an approach like WinOSI's, but not with raytracing, and definately not with REYES or scanline algorithms.
"""""""""""

I think what you meant to say that it is impossible for YOU to do it.
The artists doesnt blame the tool when he fails.. he learns new ways to get to the goal.

People like you just want a MakeNiceLookingImage button, *sheesh*

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Mon Dec 09, 2002 1:20 pm

broken wrote:I think what he's saying is that a renderer that works in such a way is the most physically accurate. Yes, it's possible to fake things using certain techniques in software pacakges to make things look photorealistic, but that's not the point of this particular renderer - the point is to make something that exactly mimics the way that real life works, out of the box.

Sure winOSI may be slow and unweildy and inferior to other artists' solutions, but that doesn't matter to these guys. I think it's more along the lines of (for example) industrial car crash simulation software vs. dynamic simulations in Maya. The industrial simulators are very very accurate, but not very useful to make movies with. Maya's dynamics can be used in a way that looks excellent, but is not necessarily totally physically accurate. I think the winOSI guys are striving for physical accuracy over artistic utility.

green wrote:""""""""""""""
It is theoretically possible to render a scene photorealistically with an approach like WinOSI's, but not with raytracing, and definately not with REYES or scanline algorithms.
"""""""""""

I think what you meant to say that it is impossible for YOU to do it.
The artists doesnt blame the tool when he fails.. he learns new ways to get to the goal.

People like you just want a MakeNiceLookingImage button, *sheesh*



And my point is if realistic simulation of light is so important then why do proffesional photagraphers and filmmakers hire people to adjust lighting? Why not just use the natural light that is available everywhere?

If light going through glass is important why dont you ever see proffesional photo's of sphere's on checkered planes?

My point is this is alot of stuff that might happen in the future, but when it does the results you will be able to get from it will be not only useless, but not noticibly different the "fake" way of doing them.

People that do architectural visualizations for example is who I am talking about. They never know anything about lighting and eather just turn on radiocity or put up a few randomly placed lights and hit the render button. their work allways looks flat and uninteresting.

You havto learn about how to MODEL WITH LIGHT. You cannot just find a solution that will work with the push of a button. A normal spotlight in blender is more or less under the same laws as a real life spotlight. if you dont know how to use eather one your photo's or renderings will eather look like crap or look uninteresting.

matt_e
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby matt_e » Mon Dec 09, 2002 1:28 pm

Green, I totally agree with you about those points, however if I interpret the WinOSI people correctly, it seems to me that they're doing it the 'physically accurate' way for the academic challenge, not to make a super great renderer for 3D artists to use. I interpret the project as more of a researchy 'lets-see-if-we-can-do-it' type project rather than as competition to all the other renderers out there that people are making pictures with. Of course this makes it inappropriate to be considering as a renderer for Blender, though I guess there's nothing stopping anyone from making a connector to their scene description format if they want to..

neil
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 1:54 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Postby neil » Mon Dec 09, 2002 4:16 pm

green wrote:People that do architectural visualizations for example is who I am talking about. They never know anything about lighting and eather just turn on radiocity or put up a few randomly placed lights and hit the render button. their work allways looks flat and uninteresting.


As an architecture student who uses 3d modelling (and would like to use it to do more) I think the thing is that something like WinOSI will show it as it really will be. If your lighting set up makes it look flat and uninteresting then that means if you put the light in reality like that then it will be flat and interesting. If you are using it for a simulation to see what the finished building will look like then it is ideal. If however you are using it for promotional pictures then, like the photographer or film crew, you will want to tweak reality to make it look better than it really would be.

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:05 pm

neil wrote:
green wrote:People that do architectural visualizations for example is who I am talking about. They never know anything about lighting and eather just turn on radiocity or put up a few randomly placed lights and hit the render button. their work allways looks flat and uninteresting.


As an architecture student who uses 3d modelling (and would like to use it to do more) I think the thing is that something like WinOSI will show it as it really will be. If your lighting set up makes it look flat and uninteresting then that means if you put the light in reality like that then it will be flat and interesting. If you are using it for a simulation to see what the finished building will look like then it is ideal. If however you are using it for promotional pictures then, like the photographer or film crew, you will want to tweak reality to make it look better than it really would be.


If that is the case then why doesnt ever architectural visualizations have dirt on them ? they are allways very very clean. Reality?


Return to “Rendering”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest