Slashdot Mirror


POV-Ray 3.6 Released

ehmdjii writes "After a long betatesting-phase the POV-Ray team just released version 3.6 of the popular opensource raytracer. It's been two years since the last version and many bugs have been fixed as well as some changes in the render core. This release concentrates on stability and providing a framework for future re-implementations."

201 comments

  1. Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Not nearly as nice as some of the pro stuff out there, but definitely usable for the rank amateurs among us.

    1. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not nearly as nice as some of the pro stuff out there, but definitely usable for the rank amateurs among us.

      I wonder if that might be more accurately stated in the reverse: Definitely better than some of the pro stuff out there, but not nearly as usable for the rank amateurs among us.

      It's actually far harder to use than simple point-click-and-drag solutions like 3dsmax or Maya, but the results can be just as good. Two of my favorite POV-Ray images:

      'The Wet Bird'
      'Chado'

      I can't even imagine putting those images together using POV-Ray. Using 3dsmax, sure. But POV-Ray? Wow.

    2. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not nearly as nice as some of the pro stuff out there, but definitely usable for the rank amateurs among us.

      I'd consider it far better than most of what goes for "pro" today.

      Sure the pro ones can claim all kinds of features that are barely more than excuses to use patents, but when it comes down to best image quality, povray is 2nd to none

    3. Re:Great, for a free package by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not nearly as nice as some of the pro stuff out there, but definitely usable for the rank amateurs among us.

      POV-Ray's a bit different from usual 3D rendering and modelling software, in that a lot of the effort has gone into making a programming language which can then be used to generate objects. Typical renderers strive to render as many triangles as possible as quickly as possible, while POV-Ray gives you an entire programming environment. For instance, while a typical 3D modeller might laboriously hand-craft a tree out of triangles, shaders and alpha-blended foliage textures, a POV-Ray user would effectively write a program for generating trees.

      A different approach giving different sorts of results, and while POV-Ray might not be suitable for, say, modelling, animating and rendering feature films, it can be used to create some quirky, glorious images. Who cares if it's not some carbon-copy of Maya or Renderman - an alternative approach is always appreciated.

      People are always complaining about 'programmer art'. With POV-Ray, programming is visual art. :-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    4. Re:Great, for a free package by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Informative
      "'The Wet Bird' ... I can't even imagine putting those images together using POV-Ray. Using 3dsmax, sure. But POV-Ray? Wow."

      Gilles Tran, the artist who made 'The Wet Bird' piece has a wonderful 9-page series of web pages on The Making of the Web Bird He's one of the best 3D artists our there in any media. You can see more of his gallery here

    5. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, WOW! That's excellent. And there's a high-resolution version of it the final image, too. Thanks!!

    6. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you want to support this guy, he sells his work through zazzle

    7. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      When they render in POV-Ray as fast as they do in a web browser I'll be impressed.

    8. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hmm, then why do the best povray images look so... fake... and plastic?

    9. Re:Great, for a free package by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Sure the pro ones can claim all kinds of features that are barely more than excuses to use patents,"

      Huh? What features are you talking about? I ask because if you go back and forth between MAX, Maya, and Lightwave, there's very little you don't get. Usually the big difference is in implementation, can't say I know anything about the 'excuses to use patents' bit.

      As for 'claiming all kinds of features'... what exactly is your motivating thought behind that comment? The last 3 releases of Maya, 3D Studio MAX, and Lightwave (probably true for XSI as well, but I have not followed it) have all had impressive features that made the creation of quality 3D art easier to do. You claim that povray's renderer is 'second to none'. Well I honestly can't tell you where it stands as I haven't used it. I can tell you, though, that these days the big bottleneck is the artist, not the engine moving the pixels around. 'Features' are a big part of making sure an artist can express themselves. If the interface is getting in your way, then the renderer isn't doing you a lick of good.

      I have NFI why anybody'd dismiss 'software for the pros' so easily.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      POV-Ray might not be suitable for, say, modelling, animating and rendering feature films
      Actually... check out IRTC and the animation competition. I'm completely amazed by what one person can do with POVRay. Believe it or not, POVRay often makes animation *simple* because you can program it.
    11. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope you were just being sarcastic. If it got any more realistic no one would believe it was computer generated. In the low-res version, it looks like a photo from a digital camera. Only when you look at it in it's hi-res image can you see those "too perfect to be real" nuances. Personally, I rather like the effect it creates.

    12. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Not nearly as nice as some of the pro stuff out there,...

      Do you mean suff like this?
      free, open sourced and professional

    13. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they see open source as a religious crusade.

    14. Re:Great, for a free package by p0rnking · · Score: 1

      You get what you pay for ... and in this case, you get a helloova lot more than what you paid for.
      Now to be honest, I've never heard of this program before, but looking at the pics in the gallery, I'm quite impressed that it's free, and is only a 9.4Mb download ... how does that saying go about small and dynamite?

    15. Re:Great, for a free package by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Excuse the pun, but: amen to that! There's a fella who posts on /. who has a sig that sums it all up: I like Linux, it's the fan club I can't stand.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    16. Re:Great, for a free package by david.given · · Score: 3, Informative
      POV-Ray's a bit different from usual 3D rendering and modelling software, in that a lot of the effort has gone into making a programming language which can then be used to generate objects. Typical renderers strive to render as many triangles as possible as quickly as possible, while POV-Ray gives you an entire programming environment. For instance, while a typical 3D modeller might laboriously hand-craft a tree out of triangles, shaders and alpha-blended foliage textures, a POV-Ray user would effectively write a program for generating trees.

      This has some unexpected advantages: firstly, CSG trees are very efficient on space, so it's perfectly possible to create a single complex tree and then instantiate it a thousand times with different scaling factors, textures etc and the scene graph will still contain a single tree; and secondly, since POV primitives are mathematically perfect, the can be scaled arbitrarily and will remain mathematically perfect.

      A while back I had a passion for rendering planets. To scale. I used a POV unit of 1.0 for a kilometre. So I made a sphere 12000 units in diameter, put a light source 150x10^6 units away, put a camera .002 units above the sphere's surface... and it all worked. Fast, too. You can't do that in Blender.

      The only thing I couldn't work out was how to match light intensities to physical units, but I'm sure it's possible. Plus some of the textures seemed to go a little funny, probably due to rounding errors...

    17. Re:Great, for a free package by helix_r · · Score: 2, Insightful


      POV ray definately has its place. However, it really is not a replacement for 3dsmax and a real artist.

      Someone who can't draw, use colors and compose will not be a good 3D artist regardless of the tools used. In the same way that a novice photographer can't (normally) compose artistically interesting photographs, a programmer won't be able to make an interesting raytrace without artistic skills even when the tools are perfectly photorealistic.

      As far as commerical packages go, they have really nice tools for "massaging" forms like nurbs which are like 3d splines. Artists need to be able to make innumerable iterative adjustments to forms, colors and positions. You can't do that efficiently by only typing equations or adjusting numbers in property boxes.

    18. Re:Great, for a free package by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      Come on, man! You need to PROGRAM (like source code and stuff) to get something to show in POVRAY. I can understand, for example, if you use a scene exporter from other place... but what you're saying is that there is no need for visual tools for modeling, animation, placing textures, etc... cause we can all use source code! And you can program in all the other packages (XSI, Maya, 3dMax, Lightwave, Blender), but nobody's replacing their visual interface.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    19. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to AC but I'm at work (I don't know my password). At ldraw.org you can download an installation package to create povray images from lego bricks. This includes an editor to create models and a viewer in OpenGL to inspect the models before rendering. The models are translated from triangles and quads to Scene Discription Language with L3P. The primitives from the lego models are replaced with true cylinders etc.

    20. Re:Great, for a free package by squidfrog · · Score: 3, Informative

      ml-POV, a patched version of POV-Ray, allows you to use high dynamic range images (HDRI) for lighting--that's about as close as you'll get to real-world lighting in POV-Ray right now. I also wrote a pseudo-solution for the standard POV-Ray.

    21. Re:Great, for a free package by mikael · · Score: 1

      Wow! I thought "The Wet Bird" was a photograph at first. The only thing that gave it away as a computer rendered image was that all the blinds of the first building were at one of several different levels.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    22. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means stuff like this: this - a contest to see if you can tell photographs from stuff rendered in Maya

    23. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jeez, an anonymous coward makes a comment you don't like, and you whine about the linux fan club.

      Grow up. There's lots of linux fans that have similiar opinions to you. And there's lots of fans that don't. Deal with it.

    24. Re:Great, for a free package by h_jurvanen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only thing that gave it away as a computer rendered image was that all the blinds of the first building were at one of several different levels.

      Actually, even that isn't a good giveaway. Some buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe, one of the architects responsible for the modern "glass box building," were designed so that the blinds could only be drawn to certain levels, thus enforcing a rather homogeneous look. MvdR was extremely influential, so it wouldn't surprise me if there are quite a few buildings with similar characteristics.

    25. Re:Great, for a free package by jfmiller · · Score: 1

      Actually, as it stands povray creats a seperate set of objects for every CGS instance but a single copy for mesh objects. (See Giles Tran Christopher Hormann's websites for more info) This is one of the issues that I would like to see changed for 4.0

      JFMILLER

      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    26. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      POV ray definately has its place. However, it really is not a replacement for 3dsmax and a real artist. Eh? Please define "real artist", in CG terms of course. There's nothing wrong with POV-Ray, it's a fantastic program. I started using it around five years ago and I haven't touched the surface with it yet, and the potential is simply, 'awesome'. Put the work in, get the results. It's there to do. -jakk-

    27. Re:Great, for a free package by mikael · · Score: 1

      You're right - I looked at the Seagram building. The blinds are exactly the same. I would never believe that an architect would go down to that level of micro-managing the appearance of a building. I always thought that would be responsibility of the interior designer.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    28. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for putting words I never said into my mouth.

      And there actually are visual modelling tools for POVRay. I've used them myself when I was stuck with a tricky problem.

    29. Re:Great, for a free package by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      CSG objects are currently copied. You can still get very large memory savings due to the fact that you don't store tons of vertices, though.

      For doing things that require huge numbers of objects, like a forest or field of grass, you generally use meshes, which do share the mesh data among multiple instantiations. And the scripting features of the POV-Ray scene description language make this very easy.

      As for the scales...there are limits to machine precision, and some of the calculations POV does for ray intersections are particularly sensitive to these limits. These limits are rarely a problem, though.

      There are no direct relationships between lighting values and real-world units, you must define them yourself. However, with appropriately chosen values, the results can be very accurate.

    30. Re:Great, for a free package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you want to support this guy, he sells his work through zazzle
      Gilles, is that you?

  2. What this really means ... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Ahh, I love geek-speak.

    This release concentrates on stability and providing a framework for future re-implementations.

    Translation:

    We know this shit is kind of broken, but we've cleaned it up best we can; here, we've tried to make sense of it; could someone who knows what they're doing maybe come in and rewrite it for us?

    ;-) (I'm just teasing, of course! :-) POVRay is one of the best rendering systems out there, free or not.)

    1. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of re-implementations, though, consider that the latest whiz-bang GPUs from NVIDIA and ATI can put together images of essentially the quality of those shown in the POV-RAY hall of fame in real-time. A great re-implementation would be a POV-Ray to OpenGL translator that uses vendor-specific extensions as necessary to let your video card handle the actual mathematics of rendering. If done well, it could also be applied to animation sequences instead of just static images, and the result would be a very fast, high-quality, low-cost rendering solution.

    2. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by thrash242 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really don't think that game graphics are anywhere near the level of high-quality raytraced images. If I'm wrong, please post screenshots. The graphics in Far Cry, as an example, are the best I've seen, but not as good as quality ray-traced images.

      I don't know if you know this, but the methods of raytracing and those used in 3D games are pretty different in how they work, from what I understand. Raytracing is also quite different from most 3D rendering applications. POVRay uses relatively "pure" mathematical models rather than models made of just tons of triangles, from what I understand (I'm admitedly pretty new to 3D graphics, though). It has some really amazing light modeling as well. I don't know if it could be done to make raytracing work in OpenGL or D3D or anything like that. It will probably be quite a few years before raytracing can be done in real time. Eventually, and probably within my lifetime (I'm 24), computer game graphics will reach or very closely approach photorealism, though. And I can't wait.

      Also, POV can generate animation, though I haven't gotten it to work yet, as I've only been working in POVRay for a little while. I've been having lots of fun tinkering and studying it, however.

    3. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'd rather see OpenGL concentrating on emulating those vendor-specific extensions to standardise them -- essentially putting some of a renderer like povray into opengl, rather than opengl into povray.

      To me, it's important to have emulated features for development. We can't buy every card. I've always thought that an OS should emulate hardware features as far as it possibly can -- just think how useful fake CD drives are.

    4. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are four, from 3D Mark 2003:

      One
      Two
      Three
      Four

      I'd say those are pretty darn close to POV-Rray quality. And done at insane numbers of frames per second, too. (The second one is my personal favorite.)

    5. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry but the only one of those that got lighting even close to correct is the fourth one. The first one was looking good until I looked at the rocks under the waters surface and they looked more like watercolors than renderings.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by turgid · · Score: 1
      just think how useful fake CD drives are.

      In what way? You can usually loopback mount CD filesystem images from modern OSs such that you don't have to burn to CD to use the data on them. Similarly with mkisofs or something, you can wirte a CD image and loopback mount it without burning it. I think you should also be able to do the same thind with hard disk file systems (you can with floppies).

    7. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Informative
      You will occasionally hear a game engine claim to use ray tracing. What they do in that case is bounce a beam from the camera to check if a polygon is visible. It's not the same thing.

      I've been ray tracing since BOB, a precursor to pov-ray that was published as floppies bundled with a textbook. Back when a complex vga resolution render would take a few days on a 386.

      The theory hasn't changed much. Just the efficiency of the algorythems, and of course, the horsepower of the computers.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    8. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by sploo22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Show me a GPU that turns a 24KB input file into this and I might be inclined to believe you.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    9. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by cynic10508 · · Score: 1

      ;-) (I'm just teasing, of course! :-) POVRay is one of the best rendering systems out there, free or not.)

      I had to write a ray tracer as a course assignment once. So I have much respect for those who can write one that just works.

    10. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by JDevers · · Score: 2, Informative

      He didn't say that games do it, he said that the GPUs can do it. Look at some of the tech demos...

      Specifically, have a look at:
      http://www.ati.com/developer/demos/rx800.html

      Click on the Quicktime of the Ruby demo...

      You want to click on "the doublecross" this is a realtime rendering that can be done on the newest ATI GPUs. Alternatively, if you HAVE one of the newest ATI GPUs, download the executables and watch them render in realtime...

      I'll agree it isn't perfect yet, but it is a big step above Far Cry...The demo itself actually looks a little bit better than this MPEG4 because of the lossy nature of the codec (and the not quite photorealistic nature of the images).

    11. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      OpenGL is essentially primitive shapes with bitmap textures. Okay, it can do a bit more, but that's the gist of it in a nutshell. If that's all you want, then stick with OpenGL.

      Ray tracing, on the other hand, takes it strengh from real mathematically modelled textures. For example, can you get OpenGL to correctly model a pyramid of stacked mirrored spheres? In POV-Ray that's so simple it's cliche.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    12. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Gelato

      This already exists. Do a Google Search for "Geltato renderer."

      NVIDIA wrote a great renderer, with all the features of the best software renderers out there (yes, including raytracing), that runs on their GPUs instead of the computer's CPU. Tremendously fast.

    13. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      POVRay is one of the best rendering systems out there, free or not.)

      There are two main problems with it. First, its input format is completely incompatible with just about everything useful. This, admittedly, isn't POVRay's fault. It was written by people who didn't know better at a time when decent tools weren't generally available.

      The other is that it isn't free.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    14. Re:What this really means ... ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. Without such a feature, it would be much harder to create and test CD filesystems. Similarly, it's hard to create and test 3D apps without emulating the 3D features of various cards.

      This applies to things like video work, too. I believe a lot more apps would take advantage of video capture if it was possible to just plug in a 'fake' capture device, and get some sort of test signals -- preferably various different kinds, or having the ability to stream video into the capture device, to have it 'digitised' out again.

  3. Woo! by orangesquid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Povray, like circleMUD, is one of those software packages whose releases seem to come few and far-between, but are often worth it...

    I, for one, welcome our new chrome-sphere-over-checkboard overlords.

    You know, a friend of mine, after I installed povray on his machine, asked me, "So, where's the GUI...?" ;)

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    1. Re:Woo! by cammoblammo · · Score: 3, Informative

      POV-Ray doesn't have a GUI, but GUI front ends have been written for it. I've used the KDE Povray modeller which is sort of nice, but I found I had to learn the language first, by which time I found it easier to just use the language. It's not that reliable, either. Good try though.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    2. Re:Woo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I love your sig :)
      -orangesquid

      and...uh... i code my povray by hand =)

    3. Re:Woo! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      So, where's the GUI...?

      That's the great thing about POVRay! You get to design and raytrace your own GUI by hand! :D

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Woo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on! It's like Gentoo, but with a different slant!

      --orangesquid

  4. PovRay OpenSource? by grumbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If povray is open source then why does Debian have it in the non-free category?

    1. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Informative

      Its not GPL, it was started years ago under a different license.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhhhhhhhhhh don't tell SCO

    3. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by SLi · · Score: 5, Informative

      POV-Ray is not open source. The license forbids, among others, commercial distribution. In fact now that I read the 3.6 license, it seems to forbid distribution, PERIOD.

      This seems to be an interesting contrast to this comment where someone (apparently a POV-Ray developer?) discusses plans to release POV-Ray under an open source license and explains why this is not currently possible:

      "we can't reach many of the people who contributed the original code under the old license, so we don't have the right to just switch the license. We'll have to rewrite some pretty big chunks of code before we can think about a more open license. That (the rewrite) is slated to happen for the next major release."

    4. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Sheriff+Fatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only was POV distributed under it's own license, the maintainers had (have?) a policy of identifying people and organisations who violated their license terms in the next update of the license document. The v3.1 license states:

      Revocation Of License

      VIOLATION OF THIS LICENSE IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS. IT WILL RESULT IN REVOCATION OF ALL DISTRIBUTION PRIVILEGES AND MAY RESULT IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PENALTY.

      Such violators who are prohibited from distribution will be identified in this document.

      In this regard, "PC Format", a magazine published by Future Publishing, Ltd. in the United Kingdom, distributed incomplete versions of POV-Ray 1.0 in violation the license which was effect at the time. They later attempted to distribute POV-Ray 2.2 without prior permission of the POV- Team in violation the license which was in effect at the time. There is evidence that other Future Publishing companies have also violated our terms. Therefore "PC Format", and any other magazine, book or CD-ROM publication owned by Future Publishing is expressly prohibited from any distribution of POV-Ray software until further notice.

      Up until I first noticed this passage in one of their licenses, I really never stopped to think about the difference between open source / freeware / PD / shareware - it was the first time I realised that giving away your software doesn't mean you're giving away your rights as well. The irony, of course, is that I first got into POV-Ray after finding v1.0 on a "PC Format" cover diskette. :)

      --
      -- Open Source: It's mad, but you don't have to work here to help.
    5. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by zz99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      POV-Ray is not open source

      POV-Ray is not free software. But it seems to be open source. At their web site there are links that seems to point at the source

    6. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Doppleganger · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're going to discuss distribution terms, you might want to look at the distributor's license. It has a lot of legalese in it (and IANAL), but it looks like it has fairly lenient terms for inclusion into an open-source OS distribution.

      The header of the license you linked points out that it is for end-users only, not distributors.

    7. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by SLi · · Score: 2, Informative

      POV-Ray is not open source according to the generally recognized definition of open source.

      Satisfied?

    8. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by SmasKenS · · Score: 1

      The source for version 3.6 doesn't seem to be there just yet.

      From the POV-Ray homepage:

      Note: this is the version 3.5 source code. The version 3.6 source code will be made available within a few weeks.

      --
      -- - e.m.p.t.y - --
    9. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by SLi · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I missed that.

      It's still very restrictive: It for example forbids distributing ANY derived code, or even renaming anything. Clause 4.5 even effectively prevents including it in any (IMO) sane static (i.e. CD or such) distribution planned to be current for more than two years.

      In fact it seems to me even more non-free than things like Shared Source :(

    10. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by RogL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't you mean "the source is open, but it's not Open Source" ?

      It's not *closed* source if you can download the source; if you mean "it's not GPL", why not say that?

    11. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      While they are at it, a real scripting interface would be nice. Yes it's cute that they are slowly adding loops and whatnot to their description language, but if it was tied to a python or TCL interpreter, you could unleash a database backend onto it.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    12. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that is really the generally recognized definition of open source?

    13. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by SLi · · Score: 1

      I don't mean it's not GPL - I mean it's not open source. It's also not closed source.

      The term "open source" has never had the meaning "software with source code available". Prior to being used to describe software that meets certain openness criteria, it simply did not exist. Instead you would have said something along the lines of, well, "software with source code available".

      Of course now that it has a commonly accepted definition, some people would like to distort it by claiming that it simply means "with source code available". I'm glad they have so far been quite unsuccessful at that :-)

      It's really like trying to sell weights made of paper under the term "paper weight". While perhaps technically correct (and I'd say even more so than using "open source" to mean "source available"!), it's likely to confuse people and, essentially, paper weight will _never_ mean "a weight made of paper".

    14. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by SLi · · Score: 1

      Also I must add that GPL != open source.

      Any software distributed under the GPL is open source, but not all open source software is distributed under the GPL. Other common licenses include X11, BSD, MIT and LGPL.

    15. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Doppleganger · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd wonder if it would satisfy that particular clause to just automatically say that the software is old and newer versions can be found at the website. It wasn't too long ago that just about every program came with such a disclaimer to cover the times when some years-old copy was found on a backwater ftp or bbs site.

      Not allowing distributions of modified versions would probably be the main sticking point. Though that might not prevent inclusion of patches that the user can apply.

    16. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It for example forbids distributing ANY derived code, or even renaming anything.

      There's a note about that at the top.

      Anyway, in the past you could only release derived code as custom versions of povray (which, of course, you can't name "POV-Ray"), and I don't expect that that will have changed.

      Povray is one of the earliest large projects I remember with source available, certainly one of the earliest for DOS/Win. It largely predates the vast popularity of the GPL, and it's very hard to change a project's license midway through. (fractint would be the other; I don't feel like hunting down its license, and it has less otherwise useful code anyway)

    17. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's cute that they are slowly adding loops and whatnot to their description language

      Slowly? They added loops all at once for 3.0 and macros in 3.1.

      And you can stick hook it up to a database with whatever language you want through the magic of pipes.

    18. Re:PovRay OpenSource? by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1
      Don't you mean "the source is open, but it's not Open Source" ?

      The source is public, but it's not open source. Similar to DJB's software (though Povray's license admittedly is much more generous than that).

      It's not *closed* source if you can download the source; if you mean "it's not GPL", why not say that?

      The OSI approves many more licenses as open source, including for example the LGPL, BSDL, Apache Software License, Mozilla Public License and the Apple Public Source License. The reason for this is simply that they fulfill the OSI's definition

  5. Great POV-Ray artist: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Take a look at this site:

    http://www.oyonale.com/
    http://www.oyonale.com/ histoire/francais/index.htm

    Gorgeous stuff! All rendered with POV-Ray!

    1. Re:Great POV-Ray artist: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even has some POVrotica.

    2. Re:Great POV-Ray artist: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Am I the only one who sees that only the greatest POV-Ray users can compare to your average hobby renderer with a warezed copy of 3D Studio MAX?

      Or is this like the 4k compo obsessions? (which would not say much for POV-Ray)

  6. Benchmarking early linux with POVRay by HogynCymraeg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember when I was at uni in the 90's and I wanted to benchmark this new 32bit linux thing, I used POV ray as it gave out handy timings at the end of a render. I used the same scene on both win 95 and linux. Linux was 3 times faster on the same machine.

    1. Re:Benchmarking early linux with POVRay by NanoGator · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Linux was 3 times faster on the same machine."

      Yeah if that result was typical, most of us 3D artists wouldn't be using Windows 2000.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Benchmarking early linux with POVRay by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like benchmarking early Povray. For whatever reason, Povray before about 3.1 was faster on UNIX systems. A lot of the POV users would do their test renders on their main Windows box, then do the final render on another Linux machine. AFAIK, it's kind of evened out as of late.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    3. Re:Benchmarking early linux with POVRay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue
      A typical 3D artist doesn't prefer a programming environment to express his feelings.

    4. Re:Benchmarking early linux with POVRay by HogynCymraeg · · Score: 0

      Well, that was true in 1995. If you have benchmarks for linux vs win2000, I'd be interested to see them.

    5. Re:Benchmarking early linux with POVRay by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Both Softimage (XSI) and Alias (Maya) report that rendering is faster on Linux (not 3X, but marginally at least).

      The problem is that the interactive portions of the programs are often better in Windows, and sometimes (especially with XSI) include things that aren't possible with Linux (integration with IE, for one, and also often the use of VBS).

      So you might think that we should just use Windows for interactive and Linux for rendering, but there were subtle differences in the rendered images - not better or worse, just subtle differences, that made compositing with images generated by both impossible (this is several years ago with Maya). Also, at the time, Linux multiprocessing was a bit more difficult. If we'd have had something like Irix's "runon" command, the animators would have been a lot happier. Moreover, many of our distributed rendering tools are happier running on a single platform.

      Add to that the fact that a lot of other tools used - photoshop and other Adobe packages, as well as some other image manipulation programs (like ACDC), and we ultimately require Windows for interactive. Since we are a small shop, we also use those boxes for evening and weekend renders.

      Still, rendering IS reported to be faster under Linux, and if you can live with the other tools available under Linux, it's probably a better, more cost-effective option than Windows.

      Keep in mind that much of what you are seeing in film these days IS rendered with Linux, not just because it's cheaper (hey, multiply a 1000 boxes times the cost of Windows) but because it IS better.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    6. Re:Benchmarking early linux with POVRay by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Yeah if that result was typical, most of us 3D artists wouldn't be using Windows 2000.

      It used to be typical. It was only with Win98/Win2k that Windows closed the gap. Now the Linux advantage is usually around 1% to 5%.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  7. Awesome! by PovRayMan · · Score: 3, Funny
    This is most excellent news as always.

    As a long time POV-Ray user (Abuser?) I've kinda fallen off watching the development since the official felt like it slowned after the big 3.1 release. It's nice to see a strong, friendly community surrounding POV-Ray even though it pales in comparison to larger 3d programs. Even so, I still feel that learning how to use POV-Ray is a great introduction to 3d and coding.

    In celebration of 3.6, I bring you this lovely scene.
    camera{ location <0,5,-10> look_at <0,2.5,0>}
    light_source{<10,10,-10> color rgb 1}
    plane{y,0 pigment{checker rgb 0, rgb 1}}
    sphere{<-5,4,5>,2 pigment{rgb 1} finish{reflection 1}}
    sphere{<5,4,12>,3 pigment{rgb 1} finish{reflection 1}}
    sphere{<0,1,0>,1 pigment{rgb 1} finish{reflection 1}}
    Thank you developers, helpers, users and everyone else within the community. You all help make POV-Ray kick ass to this very day.
    1. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Awesome! by PovRayMan (31900) on Monday June 14, @04:13AM

      ... As a long time POV-Ray user ...

      I see no evidence to back up this statement.
    2. Re:Awesome! by REBloomfield · · Score: 1
      Could not find file 'OBJECT.POV'

      Scene file parser initialisation error.

      I only have it because it's used for LegoCAD (LDraw) :)

    3. Re:Awesome! by PovRayMan · · Score: 1

      You should have zero problems copy/pasting my code into POV-Ray and saving as whatever.pov and hitting the render button.

      Also, I love doing lego stuff in POV-Ray.

      Check out my renders here.

      http://www.livejournal.com/users/povrayman/

    4. Re:Awesome! by REBloomfield · · Score: 1

      ah, fixed it. It's three balls above a chessboard thing.

    5. Re:Awesome! by REBloomfield · · Score: 1

      One day I'm going to put in the Star Destroyer (3000 pieces). Up till now I've just been building castles, 'cos my parents wouldn't buy me any when I was younger :(

    6. Re:Awesome! by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's three balls above a chessboard thing.

      Did you really need to render it to get that? :)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:Awesome! by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For even more consise examples, check out the POVRay short code contest, where they have everything from landscapes to pottery exhibits to cities to blood-cells -- each in under 256 bytes of source code.

    8. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a fine point of syntax, your pigment and finish blocks really should be contained in a texture {} block.

    9. Re:Awesome! by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      Did you really need to render it to get that? :)

      You Know You're Using POVray Too Much When ...

      ... You can recognize the picture that will be generated simply by reading the source code.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    10. Re:Awesome! by Woody77 · · Score: 1

      LOL...

      agreed.

      I learned POVRay with 2.x or so, back in HS.

    11. Re:Awesome! by fuzzhead · · Score: 1

      Nice. One of the images seems similar to something I've seen in the past. Does anyone else think this one looks like a scene from one of those rendered Starcraft clips?

  8. This happened some days ago now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The source is, however, still unavailable for version 3.6

    1. Re:This happened some days ago now by noselasd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Download page says "Note: this is the version 3.5 source code.
      The version 3.6 source code will be made available within a few weeks."

      And their ftp server tell us:
      "With the POV-Ray 3.6 release on 9 June 2004, source is not
      immediately available. It will be released shortly. If you
      want source code, you could look in our old versions dirs."

      So, be patient.

    2. Re:This happened some days ago now by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      It usually takes them a week or so after the release to clean up the code, make sure the copyright statements are in place, package things up, and so on.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  9. Gilles Tran! by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 5, Informative

    I suppose no article on POV-Ray is complete without a link to the work of Gilles Tran, creator of some utterly amazing works in his 'Book of Beginnings'. It's art, it's programming (check out stuff like his Pipes macro), and it's literature - all the pictures are accompanied by am intriguing, often tangential short story, which abruptly ends mid-sentence...

    Highly recommended!

    --
    Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    1. Re:Gilles Tran! by black+mariah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's really cool is that every time I've emailed him about even the stupidest POV-related item, he's replied and been super cool about it. I interviewed him a couple of years back for a website that never got around to publishing the article. One of the renders he did took nearly six months to finish. Long live the P200, I guess. :D

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:Gilles Tran! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My apartment's decorated with his works -- many of which he sells here

      I also stand-by your "really cool about email" comment. One of his works' wasn't available in his gallery, I emailed him; and he got back to me when he did a high-res render and published it!

    3. Re:Gilles Tran! by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      I keep forgetting he has posters whenever I have expendable cash, thanks for reminding me. :D

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    4. Re:Gilles Tran! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's even cooler is that one of the renderings on his site contains a naked chick. Mmmm huh huh. Huh huh. Cool.

    5. Re:Gilles Tran! by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I remember rendering the trainstation demo on my 486-SX25. Thing took 7 days to complete at 800*600 3 ray no AA. Today I can render that image at 1600*1200 insane ray level with full multipass AA and it will only take seconds. Kind of puts computing performance increases into perspective.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Gilles Tran! by JDevers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, with the 486DX it would have been insanely faster even then. You were having to emulate FP math with the SX.

    7. Re:Gilles Tran! by afidel · · Score: 1

      I know, but the DX was ~ twice as much money at the time.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Gilles Tran! by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Oh, if not more ;) I was just clarifying that things haven't advanced quite as much as you were implying though. A 386 with 387 co-pro would have actually been faster at rendering than your 486SX.

      Don't feel too bad though, I was using an Amiga 1200 without any accellerator at the time of the 486SX...I was slower than you were =)

    9. Re:Gilles Tran! by bestguruever · · Score: 1

      I was in the same boat with the stock A1200. After setting my machine aside for the beter part of a month for a 1 minute simple animation I started saving my pennies for that 68020 card. The waits were terrible, but somehow it was all much more fun back then.

      --
      if you think this is bad, you should have seen my last sig
    10. Re:Gilles Tran! by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Yea, I did pretty much the same thing... I bought a 68030 card running at 30 Mhz and found a crystal to run it at 37 Mhz... Early overclocking ;)

      I agree though about the fun, maybe it was just that we were younger ????

    11. Re:Gilles Tran! by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      It's fun to read stories like these.
      Reminds me of waits with my first PC (DX-25) - I used to do desktop publishing back then, it'd take it 20 minutes to repaginate margin change (that was before I upgraded to 4MB RAM, though)

      Good old times :-)

  10. Cool stuff. by noselasd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems like povray is used for many cool things.
    e.g. rendering mars. Also done here

    1. Re:Cool stuff. by Orp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also use PoV-Ray to render numerically modeled thunderstorms using isosurfaces. I've submitted an article to Linux Journal on how I modified the pov source to read my model data - dunno if it will be published or not.

      See http://research.orf.cx for pics.

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
  11. I'm a fan by danormsby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a big fan of POV-Ray. I've been using it for years to illustrate chemistry through on-line animations.

    --
    Omnis amans amens
  12. bittorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Torrent file, anyone?

  13. What happened to Mike Miller? by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

    I know this is kind of off topic, but here goes anyway:

    I used to use POV-Ray on a 486 in the early nineties, writing scenes by hand. At the time there was a POV artist called Mike Miller, who has created some very impressive scenes by the standars of yesteryear.

    Does anyoe know what happened to Mike? It seems he disappeared from the POV scene completely. I bet some Slashdot reader is bound to know... Or not?

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:What happened to Mike Miller? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      He got a girlfriend.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:What happened to Mike Miller? by marsvin · · Score: 1

      If you find out, let me know... I first heard of POV from an article in PC Format (I think it was called), where he explained how to make his Jack in the Box image (can't find it online right now).

      This was in the 486 era, where the final picture took *days* to render. He's been my hero ever since, but I'm damned if I know where he went.

      Of course, when I finally got my 486 so I could try it myself, it turned out to be a little more difficult than I thought...

  14. I'm still dreaming by ballpoint · · Score: 3, Interesting

    of the day when complex POV scenes can be rendered by hardware at 1920x1080 @ 60 fps.

    Will that day come in the next 40 years, or even ever ?

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    1. Re:I'm still dreaming by kawaichan · · Score: 1

      dude, we can't even do 1024x768 @ 30FPS

      besides, the lighting is kind of hard to do in real time anyways

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:I'm still dreaming by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Will that day come in the next 40 years, or even ever ?"

      IF (and this is a big "if") Moore's law holds (i.e. processor speed doubles every 18 months), then it should happen easily. Some quick calculations come up with:

      40 years * 12 months / 18 months = 26 doublings of processor speed
      2^26 = processor is 67108864 times faster than before
      Something that runs at 60 fps in the future / 67108864 = .0000008940 fps on a current processor.
      Taking the reciprocal, we get 1118481 seconds/frame or roughly 12 days per frame on a current processor. So anything we can raytrace now in 12 days, we would be able to raytrace at 60 fps 40 years down the round. Again, assuming that Moore's law holds.

      However, I don't think it's going to be so cut and dried. It seems like we're always on the cusp of the failure of Moore's law by reaching some sort of limit on how small we can make things. On the plus side, proper raytracing isn't exactly a prerequisite to good looking, photo-realistic images -- we're getting better and better at "cheating" with more efficient rendering algorithms that look good enough. So we might not exactly have what we're looking for, but I don't doubt for a second that rendered graphics 40 years from now will look amazing.

    3. Re:I'm still dreaming by BJH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but anybody running only 1920x1080@60fps in forty years time is going to get their ass kicked at DoomXXXVI.

    4. Re:I'm still dreaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not Moore's law. Don't misuse the term.

    5. Re:I'm still dreaming by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It seems like we're always on the cusp of the failure of Moore's law

      Actually Moore's law* has been not only held steady, but accelerated for over 100 years. Back through integrated circuits, back through transistors, back through vaccum tubes, back through relays, all the way back to at least 1900 and electro-mechanical devices.

      Moore's law is not currently on the "cusp of failing". We have enough known engineering improvements in the pipeline to keep Moore's law on track for over a decade. We have a whole host of experimental technologies, any one of which could give Moore and an etirely new lease on life. Anything from Quantum computation to carbon nanotube networks to optical computation to nanotechnology to who-knows-what in 2025.

      Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. Hold on to your seats boys and girls, things are going to be getting extremely interesting over the next few decades.

      * Footnote: Yes, Moore's law was orginally stated in terms of doubling the number of transistors on a chip. The more mordern and useful formulation is the doubling of calculations per second per dollar.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. Photon speed improvements by Kippesoep · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cool! They've changed the speed of light!

    1. Re:Photon speed improvements by Xiph · · Score: 1

      The speed of light has always been relative to the matter (or lack of it) that it travels through

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    2. Re:Photon speed improvements by andi75 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Obligatory karma whoring Futurama reference

      Cubert: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.

      Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.

    3. Re:Photon speed improvements by tntguy · · Score: 0

      Obligatory karma whoring Futurama reference

      Except that Funny doesn't get you anything

      Obligatory karma whoring correct the karma whoring comment

  16. A very good tool. by Saggi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have been using PovRay for many years now as well as other professional tools. I also work with coding of 3D engines.

    I would say a few things in regard to PovRay.

    1) It is a complete ray tracer.
    2) Its interface is not as good as (some of) the pro-tools, but...
    3) Its open source.

    Item 1. PovRay support all you need to render images in 3D. Just look at their site, in the hall of fame. The rainy street image is amazing.

    Item 2. This is probable the issue that will be discussed most. But I believe the interface developed over the years (originally I worked with PovRay way back when it didn't have a GUI) - is now at a level where it is useful for anyone who which to use it. Of cause you need to think mathematically about 3D, rather than visual. There is not any drag and drop functionality where you can add a box, a cone etc. to your scene. This scares a lot of people away, but most of the professionals I have worked with, and most of my own work, the drag-drop-icon-what-ever GUI is not really that useful. You always end up entering some popup box to insert the exact measurements of you box, cone, sphere...

    Item 3. Yes! I once was in a project where we needed a 3D engine to display the results we made. (The project itself was not related to 3D at all, but we needed a good way to display the complex set of results and date.) We made it in such a way that it displayed the results as pov-ray data files, and integrated it into powray. It was awesome. I don't know of any other product that would allow you to do this. Most of the integration was related to Item 2 above, as pov-ray uses text based and script like files as input. This is ideal for programs to handle as their output. Try to do that in any other program.

    In relation to all the items above, I believe you have to be slightly nerdish or mathematically minded in order to fully benefit from PovRay - but then again, welcome to Slashdot.

    --
    -:) Oh no - not again.
    www.rednebula.com
    1. Re:A very good tool. by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's been several years since I last looked at POVRay, so forgive this excited outburst:

      POVRay has a GUI now? COOL!

    2. Re:A very good tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, the rainy street image looks kind of fake and plastic to me...

    3. Re:A very good tool. by AlastairMurray · · Score: 0

      Ummm... I think the parent is parent is possibly just refering to the integrated text editor (with POV syntax highlighting) and buttons to control POV-Ray, start, stop, render this portion of the image etc.

      Though there are also some POV-Ray modellers out there, I never found them that useful (except for something like Wings3D to do meshes).

    4. Re:A very good tool. by PorscheDriver · · Score: 1
      It doensn't look photo-realistic by any means, but perhaps that isn't the artists intention! There was an article on /. not long ago, bemoaning the fact that as we approach photo-realism we become less forgiving of flaws in the image. Maybe renders should come with a little tooltip:

      Hehe :-)

      --
      "This is your life, and it's ending one second at a time."
    5. Re:A very good tool. by Ed+Avis · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No, POV-Ray is not open source. From the copying conditions:
      WHY ISN'T POV-RAY OPEN SOURCE ?

      While this explanation doesn't really belong in this document, we are asked it often enough that we have decided to put it here. While the POV-Ray[tm] source code is freely available, it isn't 'open' according to the currently popular definition of the term (meaning that it isn't available to create derivative works). The reasons for this are historical. Primarily, at the time that POV-Ray[tm] was originally developed (starting in about 1990), on Compuserve, it was a different environment than today. Virtually none of the developers had internet access and there wasn't a great awareness of things like the GPL. The team at that time rolled their own license - one that allowed free use of the software but attempted to prevent people taking unfair advantage of it.

      As people contributed code to POV-Ray[tm] over the years - and there have been many instances of this - they contributed it to us on the understanding that it would be covered by the POV-Ray[tm] license, as it stood at the time. Now, in 2001, we find that in many cases we don't know who wrote what part of the code, or that the author is uncontactable. We simply don't have the right to arbitrarily change the terms under which their source code is distributed. Even though it was contributed to us, we feel that we must honor the terms under which it was given. Therefore, POV- Ray[tm] will remain on this existing license until we do a full re-write (which is intended for v4), at which time a new license will be instituted that is far more liberal in terms of reuse.

      In fact, that is from the copying conditions for 3.5; the end user licence agreement for 3.6 seems to be more restrictive, and their distribution licence does not permit any modification at all.
      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    6. Re:A very good tool. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      heck, even that is worth looking at. I'm just afraid to run it on my Athlon 1.44GHz in this heat. ;)

    7. Re:A very good tool. by Kismet · · Score: 1

      POV-Ray has some excellent "GUIs." For example: Moray and Wings3d. You can even use high-profile modelers like Maya and 3ds Max, and then convert the scene files into POV format.

      Although the source code for POV-Ray is available, the POV team does not consider the program to be Open Source, nor does the license.

    8. Re:A very good tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a license for distributing the binary version. As you may have noticed, the source code for POV-Ray 3.6 is not available yet. As such, it is a waste of your time to jump to conclusions about the source code license without having read it!!!

    9. Re:A very good tool. by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Heh, well if the source code is not available at all that rather proves the point that it's not open source :-(.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    10. Re:A very good tool. by MatrixXForm · · Score: 1

      Actually the source is available for all previous versions. The developers just want to finish cleaning up the source code for the 3.6 version before it's released. (The same thing happened with version 3.5 two years ago).

  17. I just got into POVRay by thrash242 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently I picked an excellent time to look into POVRay, as it was just after 3.6 had been released. In fact the Windows distribution was still buggy and wouldn't install so I had to go with 3.5. It must have been just that day that it was released.

    Anyway, I was at first put-off by the lack of a visual interface ("how the f**k are you supposed to do all that with just text?!?"), but after messing around with Moray (a visual front-end for POV), I determined that I had fewer problems just typing it all in. I think it's my experience programming versus my lack of experience with doing anything in 3D other than a few Quake maps.

    Of course, I'm still limited to doing very basic things, but I'm beginning to understand the power of POV--especially the fact that it's a complete language. I find it amazing that people have written macros that will automatically generate everything from trees to whole cities.

    1. Re:I just got into POVRay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      redownload 3.6

      the initial release was missing some bytes at the end of the windows distribution.

      the issue you mention was brought up by several people and fixed soon after.

    2. Re:I just got into POVRay by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm still limited to doing very basic things, but I'm beginning to understand the power of POV--especially the fact that it's a complete language. I find it amazing that people have written macros that will automatically generate everything from trees to whole cities.

      That, really, is the beauty of POV-Ray. I also use various commercial modelers, but when I need (or just want) to do something algorithmically, I turn to POV-Ray. Personally, I find the macro language annoying, so I usually use Perl to generate POV code. My last for-fun project was a series of Perl scripts that generated fairly detailed office and apartment buildings in a variety of architectural styles, with most of the parameters being tweakable with commandline arguments. I first used POV back in 1990 or so, while it was still called DKB-Trace, and used it as a backend for a C program which took spreadsheet data and made bar and pie graphs that completely blew away the stuff that came out of Excel or Quattro Pro. (Of course, a simple bar graph took something like three hours to render on my 386, but that's beside the point.)

      There are a number of free and cheap commercial utilities to convert from common commercial 3D file formats to POV if you prefer to use a modeler. For many years, I used POV to do renderings from 3D Studio models because the 3D Studio renderer sucked by comparison.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  18. ObIRTC plug by Scurrilous+Knave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No discussion of the excellent POV-Ray renderer would be complete without a mention of The Internet Ray-Tracing Competition, which is graciously sponsored by a member of the POV-Ray team. While POV-Ray would certainly exist without the IRTC, it is questionable whether the reverse is true.

    On a personal note, I'd like to echo all of the positive comments about POV-Ray. Around 1988, I began writing my own ray-tracer, in Modula-2 of all things. But then I ran across POV-Ray on a BBS, and realized that I'd spend the rest of my life eating their dust and sniffing their butt fumes, so I dropped mine and have never regretted it. POV-Ray stands out among its kin--not perfect by any means, but excellent nevertheless.

  19. IRTC by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Informative
    Also, for those of you who want to see some examples of some quality (and not so quality) raytracing work, a lot of it down in POV Ray, check out the Internet Ray Tracing Competition over at www.irtc.org.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:IRTC by Scurrilous+Knave · · Score: 1

      Glad to see others out there tend to think of the IRTC in conjuction with ray tracing!

      One thing we both forgot to mention was that many of the IRTC entries (which now comprise both stills and animations) include the "source code" (scene description files) used to create the images, so it's a great place to learn by example, if that's your bag. I remember once looking at one of the winning entries and being so amazed at it that I was somewhat doubtful that it could be rendered directly in POV-Ray. Luckily, the artist included the complete source, and after a few hours, I was looking at the same image as rendered on my own box. Quite the confirmation, I'd say, and gave me a renewed appreciation for the power of this free tool.

      I'd like to thank all the artists who take the step of including their source--it's an immeasurable help to those of us who are trying so hard to stand on their shoulders.

  20. Day will come sooner than you may think by Animaether · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Day will come sooner than you may think by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      Saarbrücken uni is doing impressive stuff indeed.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  21. Too little too late.... by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Informative

    8 Years ago powray was slow, but quality wise better than most commercial renderers.
    Since then not much has changed with povray, but A LOT with the rest.
    Now povray is still slow as hell (the radiosity core is RIDICULOUS. it takes longer per scanline then others per picture while still having artifacts)

    Look here:
    http://www.pointzero.nl/renderers/
    and find at least 10 other open source renderers that were developed in less time than the povray-tram needed for this half-assed update, are 10 times faster (or 100 times if you use some sort of GI) and feature the ability to render stuff other than their own format (e.g. plugins for blender/3ds/ect).

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Too little too late.... by suso · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, do you have any statistics or evidence to back up your speed claim?

    2. Re:Too little too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      'Tis the first time I'm here at Slashdot, so please forgive me for using the "Anonymous Coward" Account...

      There are a few things you should notice BEFORE claiming that POV-Ray is slow and especially, "half-assed".

      POV-Ray makes no use of a Graphics Card GPU, but relies solely on the CPU. Why? Because the double-floating point precision isn't supplied on a GPU.

      Why is radiosity faster on commercial apps making use of the scanline-technique? Because their just showing f***ing triangles, which can be rushed through the GPU. POV-Ray needs to raytrace everything.

      So instead of dropping careless comments like "slow as hell", think about what POV-Ray CAN do and WHY it does things the way it does. And then, please, realize that many things like Photon-Mapping, Radiosity et al were implemented in POV-Ray long before any commercial app thought about it.

      And finally: POV-Ray costs niente, nothing, nada, whereas Maya, 3DSMax and whatnot cost hundreds of dollars. Think about who's on the legal side when using those apps. I doubt that everyone making images with Maya actually has it, that aside, you must be rich to jump between Maya, 3DSMax and Cinema4D to get the different benefits of the app, whereas in POV-Ray, you can tweak almost everything to get what you want.

      So, please, before commenting on a RAYTRACER next time, don't compare it to a SCANLINE RENDERER. There is a huge technical difference.

      Regards,
      TimNikias v2.0

    3. Re:Too little too late.... by JDevers · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with most of your comments (and your sentiment...don't bash it, its FREE!!! Fix it if you want to gripe about a feature) but no commercial app really uses the GPU in quite the way you ascribe, at least currently. When you render a Maya image, it is being done completely in software. The previews may be being massively accellerated in hardware, but the final image is ALL done in software (unless you have one of those extremely expensive hardware RT boxes...which the typical person doesn't). Now obviously they don't have to raytrace everything, but even when using a real raytracing renderer (like Mental Ray), they are quite fast...faster than POVRay. I'm NOT complaining though...just backing up his statement...

    4. Re:Too little too late.... by ElectricPoppy · · Score: 1
      That's not completely true. Maya does use the GPU on Nvidia and ATI cards for particle rendering. It's been a while, but I think the way it works is you cannot use both the ray-tracer and the particle renderer in the same image, you have to composite them because of that. In fact, if you don't have a supported graphics card, you can't do particles on Maya.

      I'm a bit vague on this because it's been a while, I hope I'm not blowing smoke up your ass.

    5. Re:Too little too late.... by JDevers · · Score: 1

      You may be right...I've never used it. I'm just a geek who was reading their white papers =)

      They list their own software render (selective raytracing) and the Mental Ray rendered (real raytracer), the vector renderer (for Flash and the like), and a hardware rendered. Since the hardware renderer doesn't support Irix, it would be hard to imagine a feature as important as particles not being available on a platform that important...

    6. Re:Too little too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original poster compared POV-ray to other avaliable OSS ray-tracers, and provides a nice link to a list of them. (Quite worth checking out)

      So your ranting about Maya 3Dstudio and such is a bit misplaced, IMHO.

    7. Re:Too little too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not agree more.

      Applications like Yafray completely blow away POV-ray. They are faster, and more importantly they look better. POV-ray renderings still look like something from the 90's. Dispite updates, it still looks the same as it did way back when. Back then it was decent, but by todays standards POV-ray looks crappy.

      POV-ray is like OpenBSD. That is, yeah it's kinda cool, has some solid code, is based on some "perfect" goal, but development is extremely slow-paced, it runs slow, and uses way outdated concepts. They will never catch up. Like socialism, the idea of a "perfect" system just doesn't work in practical, real-life, terms.

    8. Re:Too little too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, applications like Yafray completely blow away POV-Ray. Sure. I see tons of Yafray-rendered winners in eg. the internet raytracing competition.

      "POV-Ray killers" have come and gone. Most of them die, some of them get a small user-base, but either die nevertheless or get just more or less buried with all the others. These "POV-Ray killers" may use "modern techniques" and have a couple of fancy example images in their pages, but for one reason or another they die, while POV-Ray is still one of the most used free renderers out there. And it has been so for more than 10 years.

      You can lie all you want about POV-Ray using "old" techniques and it's image quality being "from the 90's" and whatever, but usage statistics (and POV-Ray images) say otherwise.

      It's not enough for a free renderer to use "modern" algorithms in theory and having a couple of nice example images. A good widespread free renderer needs more than that.

      I have seen several of those "more modern than POV-Ray" free renderers appear and die. Pathetic.

    9. Re:Too little too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason POV-ray is still alive is because it's a programmer's renderer, so the programmers keep it alive.

      Artists don't use it. They don't tend to use the free better-than-POV-ray proggies either because they tend to use commercial software.

      However, there are more and more artists using free software like Blender and Wings3D, and they use Yafray etc.

      Trust me, POV-ray sucks. No good artists are using it.

    10. Re:Too little too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funniest thing about those lies you are writing is that you probably believe them.

  22. Note true. Read the distribution terms by SeanDuggan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rules on distribution found inside the license page, or here.

    Basically, they require you to get permission to distribute it commercially, or even as a file posted on your webpage or P2P software, but you're free to give it out to your students, your peons, or your friends.


    I'd like to provide text, but the formatting they have there... it would likely come out horribly mangled here. But follow the link and look at section 3.1
    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Note true. Read the distribution terms by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

      POV's license sounds like pinko talk to me.

  23. there is competetion by golgafrincham · · Score: 3, Informative

    hm, i'd rather stick with yafray, it's open source, has a nicer language (ok, depends on taste) and is (somewhat) integrated into blender. and the results are simply amazing.

    --
    beer as in "free beer"
    1. Re:there is competetion by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Conversely, POV-Ray is more mature and more portable. For example, Yafray required the very most recent point release of GCC when 0.0.6 came out...sigh). Also, POV-Ray comes with documentation (fancy that!).

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    2. Re:there is competetion by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      For example, Yafray required the very most recent point release of GCC when 0.0.6 came out...sigh).

      Not only that, they're locked to that specific point release of GCC. (You need something like gcc 3.3.2 to compile; gcc 3.4, for instance, won't cut it.)

      I wanted to give Yafray a try, but to be honest, I'm not about to go through the pain of downgrading gcc just to play with a new raytracer. There's something to be said about excersizing a little restraint in your code so that it's portable.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  24. My god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in 1993 I had a friend who used Pov Ray. We were still getting all our software from BBS's back in those days.

    Now, 10 years later, they're only up to version 3.6?!

    1. Re:My god... by MatrixXForm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean, if they'd just released version 20.5, you'd have been more impressed ? :-)

      The developers concentrate on stability. Lots of other software comes and goes but POV is a stable application that you can start a render on, come back three days later, and not be looking at an 'access violation' messagebox. In fact version 3.5 was so heavily beta-tested that it was able to go two years without a single point release due to the absence of any significant 'crash the app' bugs.

      Stability is essential when you want to run an app that may need to make several trillion calculations in a large render. Many POV-Ray users prefer stability over features, and those that don't use one of the unofficial versions :-)

  25. ::shaking head:: by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    The textures, lighting effects, reflection maps, etc. are all pre-created (did you ever wonder why 3d Mark is a 250+ MB download?).

    That's not nearly the same kind of thing.

    POV-Ray generates the shadows, lighting, and often the textures, right on the spot. So a very short input file can generate a realistic 3d scene. And it does it using raytracing, so you get _real_ reflections, bump maps, and shadows. None of this is being done with GPUs, they still use precalulated texture maps and a scanline renderer (which is fine for interactive presentation and games... but again, all the hard work is done up front by the creator of the game/application/etc.)

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:::shaking head:: by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      speaking of such things, does pov-ray do radiosity? Or sticks only to ray traced sharp shadows?

    2. Re:::shaking head:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It does radiosity.

      And yes, radiosity calculations can intereact with volumetric media in PovRay.

    3. Re:::shaking head:: by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pov-ray can do soft shadows by doing shadow ray tests at every point sampled, with the light source moved slightly at each sample. It also can compute global illumination using a radiosity-like algorithm (they call it radiosity, but I'm not sure it's a true radiosity algorithm, path tracing perhaps?) They also have photon mapping, which is in many ways superior to radiosity (lower computational complexity, can simulate non-diffuse interreflections). I haven't tried photon mapping, though.

      Radiosity

      Area Lights

      Photons

      -jim

    4. Re:::shaking head:: by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Funny

      I saw this in the change log:

      Photon speed improvements (Change 1937, 2037)

      and I was wondering how they did that.

      "c, not just a good idea, its the law!"

    5. Re:::shaking head:: by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Informative

      I already mentioned this in another post, but these people created a ray tracer with non-instantaneous values of c, like 1m/s. They have a few interesting animations on their site that simulate doppler shift and some of the relativistic effects that occur when travelling at speeds approaching c.

      -jim

    6. Re:::shaking head:: by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      very sweet!

  26. A Good Teaching Tool for 3D concepts by rishistar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I had to teach Computer Graphics (circa POV-Ray 3.1) I found it a great way of getting kids to see how all the concepts involved in 3D computing came into being without having to worry too much about those with weak programming skills. (This was an issue at the place I was teaching at).

    Each type of concept (eg merging primitive objects/translucency etc) can be introduced one at a time into the text script file with instant pretty pictures to look at as output.

    They could also take the program home with them and the nerdier ones could try running it on their linux distros too ;-) This was a huge advantage over any commercial packages.

    --
    Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
  27. POVRay log analyzer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me this would be an ideal tool as part of a log analyzer. Parse your log file to get the data, then use some scripting to generate a POV file from the data. Granted, this won't help for real-time log analysis, but is good for longer term analysis (say data for a day, week, or month). With it rendered graphically, you could spot patterns that are not easily apparent. I know this was discussed earlier, but I'm too tired to find the link.

  28. Programmer art by willm5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been using Povray for years. Initialy because it was the only ray-tracer available to me, but later on because I could create high quality images and animations programmaticaly by producing scene files from aplications.

    I like it because I can pretend for a moment that Im an artist, and not a geek. Even though I'm editing what looks like a programming language to the casual observer.

    Currently I'm using it to produce animated alpha channel sprites for a game, and having a ball.

    http://www.pingball.com

  29. GPLed POV-Ray? by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Informative
    This release concentrates on stability and providing a framework for future re-implementations.

    So... does this mean there's hope for a GPL-ed POV-Ray? IIRC, the main reason why it's distributed under those restrictive terms was that the developers have no means anymore to get in contact with some authors who still have a significant amount of code in there, so they cannot get their OK for a licensing change.

    Are they going to redo those parts now and adopt a more open development model? I'd love that.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    1. Re:GPLed POV-Ray? by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, 4.x should be a complete rewrite with a less restrictive license.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
  30. GUI by squidfrog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Moray's an excellent modeller for POV-Ray. The author does a great job of keeping up with the latest capabilities of POV, even when major features are added. You can use photons, radiosity, etc., all without hand-editing the resulting POV-code. But for those who do enjoy writing POV-code by hand, Moray's convenient for those situations where you wonder what command you need to do X, and where exactly it goes in the code...

  31. Cool raytraced images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since 3.5 povray has supported radiosity which makes it possible to do really cool renderings. Lots of examples of radiosity in action be found here.

  32. povray vs maya/max/etc by capsteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's interesting to see comments that pit povray against these other applications which are really intended to put a great amount of creative control at the hands of the user...

    there are some fundamental differences between povray vs maya/max/etc which aren't so apparent but important to distinguish the applications.

    pov models and renders objects based on the mathematical description of the surface. maya/max on the other hand models objects based on triangulating the surface. while it seems esoteric, it is a fundamental difference which really puts these applications into two different classes. try modeling a quaternion fractalor other mathematical shape/function in maya... additionally the complex and random model generation that pov has(onyale's pipe macro, chris colfax macros) is not something easily created with these other apps.

    maya and max on the other hand have a strong UI to help put a layer between the user and the code itself. there's no way you could do the type of modeling in pov that you could in maya. pov is very methodical; plan out the image, heavy previsualization, utilization of macros and includes to manage the items you previously created. maya provides immediate feedback as items are created, providing a more fine art approach of creation, kinda like working with clay as opposed to architecting a building.

    comparing these applications (pov/max/maya) is like comparing a car to a plane... they are both used for transportation, but the mechanisms to implement the main function is vastly different(it's not the best analogy, take it with a grain of salt)...

    perhaps a more productive discussion would be to have some kind of shootout between maya, max, and blender.

    --
    three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
    1. Re:povray vs maya/max/etc by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never used Maya. In Maya, you can do _exactly_ what you can do in PoV-Ray when it comes to modelling. That's why MEL is there. And, even when you work with a program such as Maya, you need storyboarding, planning etc to get an idea of what the final result should be. What Maya does is that it gives you a superb user interface in addition to the coding possibilities.

    2. Re:povray vs maya/max/etc by rocketjam · · Score: 1

      pov models and renders objects based on the mathematical description of the surface. maya/max on the other hand models objects based on triangulating the surface.

      This allows you to do things with POVRay that are very prohibitive memory-wise in commercial apps because you don't have all those triangles taking up memory. In my experience, CGI works much better and much more efficiently in POVRay than any commercial modeler I've used (granted, I have no experience with the real high-end programs like Maya).

    3. Re:povray vs maya/max/etc by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      With Maya you choose if you want to work with triangles or with mathematical curves. As for efficiency, I've used PoV-Ray, and I still consider it mostly a toy/hobby. If I need something done on a deadline, I use the commercial apps, because they are far more efficient where it really counts.

    4. Re:povray vs maya/max/etc by capsteve · · Score: 1

      you're right, i don't work with maya,but i do work in a company that utilizes maya and max, so my exposure to it isn't completely uneducated... i also don't disagree with you that storyboarding and planning aren't important. if ideas aren't sketched out and some type of planning work done ahead of time, it's easy to get lost in the process. i've witnessed under-planned projects start to waiver in its original goal because the artist started getting too involved in the journey and start to lose sight of the destination.

      like i said, maya and max provide a very strong UI to give the artist immediate feedback in the modeling process, something you don't get in pov. when you're in a creative roll, you don't need to wonder how to operate the tool, you want to just start using it (somewhat) intuitively. but i think the comparison between maya and pov is apples and oranges...

      but back to my original query, since you seem to be an educated maya user, whats your opinion of blender and it's capabilities, in comparison to maya or max? i think this is more interesting than the maya vs pov discussion...

      --
      three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
    5. Re:povray vs maya/max/etc by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Blender has a few features, but the renderer is still a bit behind quality-wise, even though it's fast. The reason I don't use it seriously(and why I've never stuck with it, despite trying it out to and from since 1996) is because it's such a kludge to work with. And, now that it's Open Source, I expect it to develop more in the direction of "Oh, shiny!" cool technologies, while the UI will still remain annoying.

  33. Specific Vengeance License by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whoah!

    Can you imagine pissing off the authors of an open source project so much that they specifically name you in their modified license?!?

    This would be akin to a modified GPL version 4,

    "whereas, be it known, that all of the aforementioned rights are completely and utterly revoked, in perpetuity for Darl McBride, business associates of Darl McBride, and all his descendents are likewised to be cursed and spat upon, even unto the fourth generation. He shall have no community rights whatsoever, neither shall his name be uttered in any sacred place, nor his handiwork to be exhibited with 100 feet of a sacred place, school nor voting booth....
    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Specific Vengeance License by achurch · · Score: 1

      "... He shall have no community rights whatsoever, neither shall his name be uttered in any sacred place, nor his handiwork to be exhibited with 100 feet of a sacred place, school nor voting booth....

      "... nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out..."

  34. "Pro" comparison by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Problem is when you are a professional, its not just about output quality, its about production quality.

    If it takes longer to produce acceptable output then its NOT as 'good' in the general sence.

    Raw productivity goes down in that situation, which costs money.

    Amateurs dont count in the professional world, its just a fact of life. ( being an amateur 3D person myself, i can say that honestly )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:"Pro" comparison by KoshClassic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think POV-Ray produces great output, however I would imagine that for professionals, it is probably not very good from the standpoint that, compared to commercial ray tracers, the time that must be invested to obtain a given output is probably much greater, typically, than for a commercial package. Still, images like this and this and even this inspire me to still tinker around with it.

      Heck, POV-Ray was what inspired me (way back) to upgrade from that 386DX-33 to the 486DX2-66 with a 2 meg Diamond Viper VESA card so I could display 800x600 in 24 bit(!) :) I also love the fact that, as opposed to most other (triangle / polygon based) renderers, POV-Ray's primitives are perfect shapes (i.e. a sphere in POV-Ray is a perfect sphere, not some sort of polygon based construct with Gourad shading) unless of course you intentionally build up objects from its triangle primitive.

      --
      Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
  35. Relativistic ray tracer from Australia by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Cool! They've changed the speed of light!

    I know you're joking, but these people really did make a ray tracer where you can change the value of c. They have a few animations where they set the speed of light to small values like 1m/s.

    -jim

  36. Holy *#%@#$%! by emarkp · · Score: 2, Informative
    Thanks for the link! Not the Ruby clip. Check out the Subsurface Scattering demo. That's some of the most impressive work to come out of Siggraph in the past few years, and one of the reasons Gollum looked so good in LotR. See here for more.

    Implemented in a video card in real time? Wow. I'm impressed.

    1. Re:Holy *#%@#$%! by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Yea, its a VERY impressive technique but I didn't think that tech demo was very VISUALLY impressive so I didn't mention it.

      There is an HDR demo floating around out there that any DX9 card can run that is really impressive, it consists of several spheres surrounding a large one with very nice lighting. Pretty simple, but less mathematically demanding and still more impressive visually than Far Cry (in my opinion at least...). I can't think of the name of it though, I'm sure a search for HDR lighting will turn it up quickly...

  37. yafray docs by golgafrincham · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also, POV-Ray comes with documentation (fancy that!).

    there is documentation, just not on the yafray pages ;) yafray docs

    --
    beer as in "free beer"
  38. POV-Ray has supported radiosity since 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  39. HDR demo by emarkp · · Score: 1

    Is this the HDR demo you mentioned?

    1. Re:HDR demo by JDevers · · Score: 1

      That's it...bookmarking now (too bad I have to reboot into Windows to look at it :/)...

  40. The Zen of POV-Ray by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 2, Interesting

    POV is one of the greatest free software programs available, but people usually look at it the wrong way (IMHO).

    What stops people generally is that it has no visual modeling facility. This leads people to believe that it is only good as a renderer where the input is created by some visual modeling tool like Moray, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    While you certainly can use POV as an ordinary backend renderer, the true fun and power of the program comes with hand-written scene description files.

    Yes, hand-written.

    You can accomplish in 20 lines of POV code things that would take hours with a visual modeling interface. It's all about procedural descriptions rather than visual construction. Take some time and look through the many excellent sample scenes that are included, then start out by making small changes to the code and rendering them to see how it looks with your change.

    Most of the best images created with POV were not done using a modeling program but hand written scene descriptions.

    POV is a programming language for scenes the way C is a programming language for computer programs, and it really is a full-blown programming language (though a little unusual in places I will admit).

    While things like modeling complex organic forms (the human body for example) are generally impractical to do procedurally, you can do just about anything else this way, and often much more easily and with more control than you would have positioning a lot of points in space iwth a modeling program.

    And if you have any interest in the more abstract artistic kind of compositions, you can do just amazing things in a single page of POV code. The ability to use conditional and looping stuctures along with macros and functions in your scene description gives you amazing power.

    And as far as GUIs go, at least POV for Windows has one of the best designed and most functional GUI interfaces that I've used. It's not a modeler, but as an interface to the POV renderer and even as a general purpose code editor it is superb.

    One of POV's best uses (and most overlooked ones) is as an introductory programming environment for children. You can quickly show a child a program that creates 100 reflective transparent randomly colored spheres randomply positioned, and then show them how to change one or another of the parameters that control the apperance or number of spheres, and they can iteratively experiment with changes and rendering their results.

    It's simple programming with a visual payoff.

    G.

  41. The Zen of POV-Ray-Nvidia's Cg. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. I wonder if POV-Ray and Nvidia's Cg would go well together?

    1. Re:The Zen of POV-Ray-Nvidia's Cg. by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      There've been experiments with similar things. It does have a built in function VM currently used for isosurface functions and user defined patterns, but the programming facilities are pretty bare-bones. I did write a patch adding a C-like language of mine as a built in function, but never did much with it. (Creating new programming languages is a hobby of mine...the latest is a PostScript-like language with an OpenGL interface.)

      Cg seems like it's oriented toward graphics card shaders, for POV-Ray, something more like RenderMan shaders would be more appropriate. There's already huge amounts of RenderMan code out there, and it doesn't have the assumptions and restrictions of a language designed for video cards. Check out POV-Man: http://www.aetec.ee/fv/vkhomep.nsf/pages/POVMan2

  42. Cool stuff.-3D Ploticus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds to me like POV-Ray is the Ploticus of 3D.

  43. Woo!-A "small" front-end. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking a nice GUI could be done using Squeak. Sort of a "futuristic meets retro". Or (blasphemy) a Mono/Gtk# front-end.

  44. "Pro" comparison-Incomplete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To borrow a wittism from another Slashdot story. An amateur pays attention to his tools, while a professional pays attention to his art.

    Professional:=commercial.
    "1. Of or pertaining to a profession, or calling; conforming to the rules or standards of a profession; following a profession; as, professional knowledge; professional conduct. ``Pride, not personal, but professional.'' --Macaulay. ``A professional sneerer.'' --De Quincey."

  45. Great, for a free package-Paradigm Punch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also something about the programming paradigm of POV-Ray. A lot of the same techniques we use with code, can be used on POV-Ray. Refacturing, CVS, UML, XP, etc