#Ray tracer?
7 messages in this thread
Hello Mark:
No, Renderize Live is not a Ray Tracer.
However, I implore you to look at the quality of the images that are created,
_not_ the technology used to create them, as a criteria for your evaluation.
Users don't care how you do it, as long as you do what they want.
We are a hybrid scan line rendering product. Hybrid because we _do_ support
environmental reflection maps. accurate shadows and lighting effect, and other
features usually associated with a Ray Tracer. In addition, as a scan line
renderer, we offer far better control of texture mapping characteristics. Most
importantly, you can use our product in a produciton environment because you're
talking about rendering times that are anywhere from 10x to 100x faster.
Hoping to change your focus, best regards,
Nick Josephs
Visual Software
Thanks for your letter. The article I'm doing is _on_ Ray Tracing, and I
wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed you guys. I do a lot of work for PC
Graphics& Video, COmputer artist, etc., so I look at a lot of software. I'll
keep you guys on my list for a less focused article.
.mark
Mark:
I know a lot of times, magazines will have the main story and then in a little
box, somewhere in the middle of the article, they will have a blurb about
related topics that may not fit into the primary "focus" of the article. As a
user of the software and a reader of these magazines it would be great to know
of an "alternative" product that could give me similar results at a fraction of
the rendering time. You may wish to reconsider, briefly mentioning
RenderizeLive and its capabilities would be a great service to your readers.
Let me know if you'd like some user input.
joel*avery, i design
p.s. what other packages are you reviewing?
>p.s. what other packages are you reviewing?< Well, it's more of a 'round-up'
than a review, but I'm looking at Hash Animation Master, Topas, Real3D,
Imagine, trueSpace … and of course POV-ray, Polyray, and Vivid.
.mark
Hello Nick and all,
As an electronic publisher spending most of the time trying to find ways to
distribute the English version of the publication, I thought I should drop in
here and say Hello. A little bit late maybe….
I have produced a thorough comparison between trueSpace and Visual Reality and
some comments from that could maybe be useful here until the material is
released.
>>> In addition, as a scan line renderer, we offer far better control of
texture mapping characteristics
That is very true. I found that Renderize managed to squeeze out a lot of those
bump and texture maps that were used. Actually the quality of the renderings
done in Renderize is quite unique. It is hard to describe, but the images get
some quality that usually is not found in raytraced images. What is also worth
mentioning is the very, very useful and elegant VR feature allowing 2D images
to EASILY be used as (pseudo) 3D objects.
Renderize does a very good job with shiny metal surfaces, not all behind
trueSpace in quality, but I have not yet been able to get close to that Glass a
good raytracer like trueSpace can produce. I guess the lack of refraction
options in a scanline rendering software makes this a hard one to solve.
>>> because you're talking about rendering times that are anywhere from 10x
to 100x faster
Don't agree at all. That is to say: within the limits of my testing with small
projects. Can't comment on really large projects. Admittedly Renderize is a
VERY fast rendering engine, but so is trueSpace as a raytracer. Even if THE
RENDERING TIMES in Renderize may be much faster than trueSpace you have to
include the time it takes to create the reflection maps. If you have 2 or 3
shiny and reflective objects the performance advantage of Renderize is lost
creating the reflection maps.
It is quite funny and not at all common: I have never had such a difficulty to
pick out which package to recommend as when I reviewed VR and trueSpace. This
is a far cry from the more easily exchangeable mainstream business packages!
Both programs have extremely strong features, but I would hate to just choose
one of them since they are so extremely different as well.!
You can find a little preview of the VR/trueSpace article/chapter in DIP1a1 and
DIP1b1.EXE – a free DiP sample – that is uploaded to GRAPHSUPPORT (non-gif
library) and other forums as well.
Best regards
Thomas Lindstrom – DiP – Sweden
The Digital ComPuter Magazine
(Everybody's Guide to Digital Publishing & Digital Pictures)
Hello Thomas:
Thank you for taking the time to review our package. I look forward to
downloading the referenced article to better understand our relative merits.
Hello Nick,
Thanks for your reply. It seems like you keep an eye on this forum on a every
day basis!
>>> Thank you for taking the time to review our package.
My pleasure. At least the time spent in Renderize was a real pleasure! I really
like the Renderize part of VR and hope you will manage to put the same
interface on top of VR Model as well as give it the same very, very good
tutorial as Renderize. As it is now Model is a little bit too tough for us
plain image manipulators with no background in CAD or other drafting.
>>> I look forward to downloading the referenced article
Nice, but be prepared that it is only a brief summary of the actual review in
DiP Number 2. There is a liitle bit of polishing left there, but it is my habit
to send a copy to the vendors so the review will arrive to both VS and Caligari
in due time.
Just for the fun of it I thought I should upload the "title image" from DiP 2
to your library. It is a far cry from those advanced things that can be done
with VR (as well as trueSpace) as well as a not too successful composition, but
what the heck! (I spent much longer time with VR/trueSpace than I really could
afford, but it was fun!) I think it serves as a fairly good example of what I
like with Renderize. I will post a short descriptive message when the file is
ready for download.
Best regards,
Thomas Lindstrom