From   Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:04:24 -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 19:04:24 -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 39107312; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:04:21 -0700
Received: from 199.185.220.220 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003041822073962599 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sat, 19 Apr 2003 02:07:39 GMT
Received: from computer ([66.222.145.239])
          by priv-edtnes03-hme0.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id

          for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:04:18 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Fake or foto
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:03:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

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/

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