Subject:
|
Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:18:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8249 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
| |
Silly question - why don’t you use LDView???
|
That isn’t a silly question at all, really. In fact, it may be more important
than all the flaws that have been pointed out. Based on the comments here,
there seems to be a general consensus about a few things regarding “high-quality
instructions rendering”:
- People don’t like the shadows.
- People don’t like the reflections.
- People don’t like the refraction (maybe).
The thing is, if you get rid of shadows, reflections, and refraction, the only
things you get in POV-Ray that you don’t get in LDView (as far as I know) are:
- Accurate curved surfaces (for those supported by the primitive substitution of your LDraw->POV converter)
- Phong lighting
- Better transparency where the background is visible through a transparent surface
Without a specular highlight, most people would be very hard-pressed to tell the
difference between phong lighting and the gouraud lighting that LDView uses.
And unless the primitive is really big, you’re not likely to notice the lack of
truly round surfaces in LDView.
And yet, people seem to prefer POV-Ray for their high-quality instructions
rendering. So what am I missing? For reference, here is the same model,
rendered with LDView:
1600x1200
800x600
For the above render, I set LDView to have the settings that I think would
produce the best quality for instructions. When I get home tonight, I’ll
re-render the Version 1 POV image with a single light source and more ambient.
I may also be able to cut down/eliminate the noise in the transparent regions
where the transparent parts meet the opaque parts.
--Travis
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
| --snip-- (...) --snip-- (...) Is it that they prefer POV-Ray or that they don't have/aren't aware that the latest versions of LPub can use LDView? Although I consider myself quite a dab hand at POV-Ray I would never use it for instructions now that (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
| | | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
| (...) I would choose LDView over POV-Ray and L3P in an instant if the -SaveAlpha option worked on my Mac. Otherwise, I think your conclusions about the appearance settings are correct. LDView renderings like your example look great. Would it make (...) (17 years ago, 9-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
| | | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
| (...) To me, the reasons are mainly "historical": the first way to get better images than the output of Ldraw/MLCad/LeoCAD (which is not that bad for instructions!) was POV-Ray. L3PAO then LPub did a lot to push POV as the renderer of choice. Add to (...) (17 years ago, 9-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
| (...) For me, the keypoint here is "for instructions". Anything that remove legibility to the image should be avoided. In both versions conditional lines are not rendered. Not a huge problem here, could become one on models with many rounded (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
