Just wanted to say that their is a great freeware SMALL renderer ..
http://www.winosi.onlinehome.de/
WinOSI ?
Moderators: jesterKing, stiv
Re: WinOSI ?
Looks good indeed, and it's opensource 
could be very useful.
But there's not a lot of documentation yet.
could be very useful.But there's not a lot of documentation yet.
-
protoplazm
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 8:55 am
Do not judge WinOSI before you even know what it is!
It is an experiment in physically-based modelling of light. It is not intended for artistic use. It does represent what will probably be standard for CG eventually. By modelling the actual photons as rays, it is possible to simulate all light phenomena with perfect accuracy. Unfortunately, with current computing power, that requires days of calculation. There was a time but a decade ago when a typical frame of a typical game would be all but impossible to achieve, even pre-rendered. Now it's realtime...
WinOSI is very impressive in that it models light with amazing physical accuracy. For Blender, it would be better to look to Renderman, raytracing and the like instead.
It is an experiment in physically-based modelling of light. It is not intended for artistic use. It does represent what will probably be standard for CG eventually. By modelling the actual photons as rays, it is possible to simulate all light phenomena with perfect accuracy. Unfortunately, with current computing power, that requires days of calculation. There was a time but a decade ago when a typical frame of a typical game would be all but impossible to achieve, even pre-rendered. Now it's realtime...
WinOSI is very impressive in that it models light with amazing physical accuracy. For Blender, it would be better to look to Renderman, raytracing and the like instead.
I dont see alot of checkered floors and glass spheres in proffesional photo's...Noiprox wrote:Do not judge WinOSI before you even know what it is!
It is an experiment in physically-based modelling of light. It is not intended for artistic use. It does represent what will probably be standard for CG eventually. By modelling the actual photons as rays, it is possible to simulate all light phenomena with perfect accuracy. Unfortunately, with current computing power, that requires days of calculation. There was a time but a decade ago when a typical frame of a typical game would be all but impossible to achieve, even pre-rendered. Now it's realtime...
WinOSI is very impressive in that it models light with amazing physical accuracy. For Blender, it would be better to look to Renderman, raytracing and the like instead.
Green, you managed to mispunctuate and misspell in a single chunk of destructive sarcasm.
If you had read what I wrote more carefully, you would notice that I never called it photorealistic. It is more physically accurate than other algorithms. Those checkered floors and glass spheres you refer to are clearly due to the limitations of the scene description language supported by WinOSI, not the rendering algorithm itself. 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.
MrMunkily, if you think WinOSI is not a renderer, you should look up the definition of the word. WinOSI is most definately a renderer, just not one designed for the purposes that you people all seem to assume it was intended for. WinOSI is more of a scientific experiment than anything else.
As for Global Illumination, do you mean WinOSI's examples are not complete GI solutions, or do you mean GI in general? If you knew anything about the physics of light, you would know that light levels on surfaces are actually defined as the limits of infinite photonic reflections. There is no such things as calculating a GI scene to "completion". By modelling the actual photons, it is possible to generate pixel-perfect images, though, and those will be "complete" in your sense of the word, but that requires a fair bit of supercomputer time for even a simple scene.
There are actually scenes that have been calculated to extremely high degrees of accuracy, the classical one being the Cornell Box, of course.
I am not defending WinOSI for the sake of WinOSI.
I stand for truth.
If you had read what I wrote more carefully, you would notice that I never called it photorealistic. It is more physically accurate than other algorithms. Those checkered floors and glass spheres you refer to are clearly due to the limitations of the scene description language supported by WinOSI, not the rendering algorithm itself. 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.
MrMunkily, if you think WinOSI is not a renderer, you should look up the definition of the word. WinOSI is most definately a renderer, just not one designed for the purposes that you people all seem to assume it was intended for. WinOSI is more of a scientific experiment than anything else.
As for Global Illumination, do you mean WinOSI's examples are not complete GI solutions, or do you mean GI in general? If you knew anything about the physics of light, you would know that light levels on surfaces are actually defined as the limits of infinite photonic reflections. There is no such things as calculating a GI scene to "completion". By modelling the actual photons, it is possible to generate pixel-perfect images, though, and those will be "complete" in your sense of the word, but that requires a fair bit of supercomputer time for even a simple scene.
There are actually scenes that have been calculated to extremely high degrees of accuracy, the classical one being the Cornell Box, of course.
I am not defending WinOSI for the sake of WinOSI.
I stand for truth.
This is why Blender needs besides any integrated renderer(s) the ability to easily interface with external renderers. No-one can agree what the ideal renderer is because everyone has different requirements/interests/patience (in terms of rendering times). Personally I think once he has made the upgrade to handle complex geometry better this will be a very good option to have along with other renderers.
Neil
Neil
""""""""""""""
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*
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*
the renderer doesn't look to bad.
the images are grainy because the camera is picking up only photons that reach it (because "the renderer is so advanced" )(LOL)
na i think it looks nice and the images are rather real looking. (even if they look a bit washed out)
Hmmmmm
please don't start a fight
it would make me sad.
wait for a new version i say, it still has a few bugs.
the images are grainy because the camera is picking up only photons that reach it (because "the renderer is so advanced" )(LOL)
na i think it looks nice and the images are rather real looking. (even if they look a bit washed out)
Hmmmmm
please don't start a fight
it would make me sad.
wait for a new version i say, it still has a few bugs.
The Problem...
Well, beside that there's a problem. Not all of the renderers, WinOSI for instance or Light++, can take renderman rib-files as their input. Light++ takes C++ text. vmd-files are of another format than the others. So, I don't want to talk long about this - what do you think of desinging an interface definition language, so that we would have a bison for blender. The designer of an interface to any renderer would provide an interface definition to his format and the blender would then use this definition to produce the right format.
Would'nt that be nice? Well, if this is a good idea, I would start such a thing but I need your concerns!
/Kniffo
Would'nt that be nice? Well, if this is a good idea, I would start such a thing but I need your concerns!
/Kniffo