From   Tue, 22 Apr 2003 03:41:57 -0700 remote
from fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 03:41:57 -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 329360812; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 03:41:55 -0700
Received: from 66.208.140.2 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003042206450715691 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:45:07 GMT
Received: (qmail 14555 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 10:41:39 -0000
Received: from roa-ppp0555.dm.optidynamic.com (HELO Jackie) (66.208.141.218)
  by mail.optidynamic.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2003 10:41:39 -0000
Message-ID: 
From: "Jackie Spivey" 
To: 
References: 

Subject: Re: Fake or foto
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 06:43:37 -0400
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

Could you e-mail this so I can take a peek? (the mannequins dancing)
Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fake or foto


> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

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