From   Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:36:14 -0700 remote from
fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:36:14 -0700
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 44616500; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:36:11 -0700
Received: from 216.174.194.60 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003041823392573483 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sat, 19 Apr 2003 03:39:25 GMT
Received: (qmail 17274 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2003 03:36:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.61.184)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 19 Apr 2003 03:36:03 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:35:38 -0700
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re: Fake or foto
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

yeahyeah okok -- how many did you get right? :)


At 08:03 PM 4/18/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>karen.wattie{at}fanciful.org at karen.wattie{at}fanciful.org wrote:
>
>
> > It's too darn quiet in here.
> > Take the challenge..... http://www.fakeorfoto.com/
> > I got 6 out of 10 correct, which is supposedly pretty darn good.  Let's
> > see how you all do.  Larry....I expect a perfect score from you 
>
>I went there and looked, and there was not a single image that I could not
>come close to duplicating with 3-D rendering.
>
>Also seeing that it was the Alien|Wavefront web-site was discouraging as
>well, since their astronomically priced product, MAYA, is about the top of
>the heap for photorealism. It and LightWave pretty much have movie CGFX tied
>up along with Softimage for character animation.
>
>Light, translucency, texture and reflections are completely photorealistic
>in these programs. In fact, in staging and lighting, they work just like
>photography and all of a photographer's skill transfer intact.
>
>I recently rendered an illustration of lighting for photographing paintings
>for a person on one of the other photographic forums. I really did a
>quick&dirty, with little effort at realism beyond showing where the elements
>should be. I could have gone all out and made it MUCH more realistic. My
>lights did not even have power cords.
>
>He thanked me and mentioned that my "studio" looked very much
like his!!!! I
>don't HAVE a studio! This one only existed in cyberspace until my 3-D
>program "photographed" it.
>
>I am not much drawn by photorealism in 3-D - that is rendering ordinary
>objects with the care that they are indistinguishable from real like in the
>test. I rather use it to realize places and things that are purely
>imaginary. How else can you photograph two mannequins dancing in zero
>gravity?
>
>I do have an 18 second highly compressed and low-resolution clip from of
>this - 651K. Small enough to be e-mailed if anyone would like a peek. It is
>compressed with a WMV codec and runs on Windows Media Player. It is like a
>highly compressed JPEG with visible artifacting. Most of what I do is in
>high resolution, is much longer and produces huge files. It makes no attempt
>to be photorealistic, though the mannequins do move rather well and the
>lighting is nice.
>
>larry!
>ICQ 76620504
>http://www.larry-bolch.com/
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to wclistserve{at}fanciful.org with
>UNSUBSCRIBE photo in the message body on a line by itself.
>To contact the list admin, e-mail Tom.Lebens{at}fanciful.org
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5