I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Thanks in advance.

r

Robatoy wrote:
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Thanks in advance.

r
right hand pic

I asked for, and received, a lot of constructive opinion.

I will do the 10 second raytracings to eliminate all those colours
they do not want.
Then, when the client(s) and I narrow it down to a couple, do a better
rendering.
The 3 minute time span will be taken up by reviewing the wonderfulness
of the product, and the excellent choice the customer just made
extolling the virtues of having superb taste.
*hurl in bag/ toss*

Seriously, that was very helpful.

Thanks.

r

Both have points in their favor, but on balance, the one on the right.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Robatoy wrote:

I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Thanks in advance.

r

My personal preference would be the one on the left; it just seems to be a
sharper, better defined image. But that's just one person's opinion.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Thanks in advance.


Both have good and bad points, one on left is a harder and crisper image
then one on right, one on left seems clearer but I don't like the way the
tile looks on the right side of the sink unit, seems to be very out of
square, right hand pic is the same but the softer image makes the tile look
better. I would go with the low horsepower pic since both give a good
professional image. I like the right one better but only slightly.

Robatoy wrote:
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Thanks in advance.

r
It all depends upon your audience and what you are trying to tell them.
I realize that this doesn't tell you much but that is gospel. That
said, it also ties into your presentation and your speaking style.
Being a veteran of lots of sciency presentations (some international), a
little humor and some "punch and zip" kept people awake and interested.
You are there to sell AND to entertain. Have fun with it (I am
thinking that your speaking style is similar to your writing style).
mahalo,
jo4hn

Robatoy wrote:
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have
the time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in
Strata.

The one on the right has too low gamma and/or contrast and saturation.
When tweaked to more closely resemble the one on the left the painted
wall has considerably more detail than the left.

As is, I'd use the one on the left. I still would even if the one on
the right is fixed.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

"Robatoy" wrote

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Strictly personal preference, for visual appeal with a decidedly
un-technical eye, is the one on the right.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message

"Robatoy" wrote

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Strictly personal preference, for visual appeal with a decidedly
un-technical eye, is the one on the right.

Went back and took another look in an attempt to quantify the "why" of my
above.

Providing I assume correctly that the subject/focal point is supposed to be
the pedestal sink, and not the checkerboard wall, the increased contrast of
the checkerboard wall in the background on the left frame definitely pulls
my eye away from the pedestal ... this despite the fact that the pedestal in
the left frame has a sharper focus on this monitor.

Muddled or not, that's my story and I'm sticking to it ...


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:45:31 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Thanks in advance.

r

First glance, the one on the left, however, if your potential client
is going to sit and study the plan, the right picture is much more
realistic and seems to "settle" in the mind better.

Frank

Robatoy wrote:
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.

I like the right.

The shadows seem more realistic for an interior shot. I also like the
tile texturing on the right.

I like both,but the shadow is too much. Try to get a higher
light angle. The sink sort of disappears into the shadow.
Doesn't feel "quite" natural.

Push comes to shove: Left one.

MJ Wallace

Robatoy wrote:
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

The one on the right is substantially better in most ways. Neither
of them qualifies as photorealistic though, so if "realistic" is your
goal, then you need to either do more work or lower your standards.
Not being derogatory here--true photorealism is really difficult,
expensive (in terms of compute time), finicky, easy to screw up, and
very seldom necessary. Honestly, both of these are quite good. The one
on the right could almost be a slightly posterised photograph at first
glance.

Colin

Right

Robatoy wrote:
I'm due to go back to work after New Years and I simply won't have the
time to dick around with frivolous things after that.
But I did get some constructive development done with my 3d stuff.
One thing that puzzles me. What is really required, in terms of
rendering quality, when I make a presentation to a customer.

Many of you have a keen eye. I would appreciate an honest opinion
which of the two images comes across as the 'obvious' better of the
two.
One of them takes a whole lot more horsepower than the other and
subsequently a lot more time.
EVERYthing in the two images is the same: lights, camera angle,
textures etc.
One is rendered in Raytracing, the other in Radiosity. Both in Strata.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...Rendertest.jpg

Thanks in advance.

r

The one on the left has much cleaner
lines. Less fuzziness, and for what
you're doing - presenting to potential
customers, I'd prefer that one.

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/