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

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

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

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)

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.

"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 Dec 20, 1:47 am, JeffB wrote:
Both images have good points, I can't say one is "obviously" better. And
they are not EXACTLY the same - the tiles around the edges indicate a
slightly different field of view between the images - which does affect
one's perception. The sink in the left images appears slightly closer -
which adds to its "presence".

I didn't move the camera between renderings. I didn't crop the images
carefully either. But you're right, upon further experimentation, that
minimal difference is noticeable. The human eye is amazing.
In a similar vein, we established during some tests at the National
Research Centre in Ottawa, that 1/10 of a dB difference in volume is
easily detectable by the human ear. Linearity and distortion levels
are another matter. We actually LIKE distortion if it is the 'right'
kind.

My opinions:
The right image appears more realistic, softer edges and shadows, more
texture. And a more natural contrast level. This could possibly pass as
a picture.

The left image has an unnaturally high contrast level. The colors are
more vivid, and there is less texture in the surfaces. The shadows are
unrealistically sharp. It is obviously computer generated. It also has
more "snap" - kind of a "better than real life" quality to it. (For any
film photographers reading - it looks like some Velvia landscapes -
more/better than was actually there.)

Both could be used for presentations - personal preference could pick
either one over the other - depending on the desired effect. If time is
the overriding consideration, go for the fastest (Ray tracing) - which
is certainly the left one...

Or if you want the right side look (Renderosity) can't you just queue up
the rendering tasks and let them run by themselves or overnight?

Timing is everything in this case. The Raytracing took about 10
seconds, the Radiosity (image on the right), 3+ minutes.

When doing a presentation, the potential client can select a colour/
pattern from a palette and have the countertop render in front of
their eyes on top of an image of their kitchen/service counter/display
as a background.

I have been doing this for years, and always did a couple of
renderings ( and they DID take overnight in the early days) and took
them to print. Now that computers are so much smaller and faster, it
would be nice to do this real time.
I guess the question is, is the 3 minute wait worth it for a slightly
more realistic image?
The fact that some people like the 'snap' of the left image, makes me
wonder if that 'snap', and the speed, would be more effective.

r

"Robatoy" wrote

I guess the question is, is the 3 minute wait worth it for a slightly
more realistic image?
The fact that some people like the 'snap' of the left image, makes me
wonder if that 'snap', and the speed, would be more effective.

I suppose you could "read" each individual client and give them what they
want.

I am reminded of a story I read about a local roofing guy who did a little
computer magic from the roof top. He had a laptop and a baby-portable
printer. He would go up on the rooftop, make some measurements, etc, imput
the data into the computer and print out a complete estimate from the
rooftop.

It would include lots of extra info above and beyond the actual roofing
estimate. People were so blown away by this guy's technical wizardry, they
often signed the estimate on the spot. And he priced himself about 30 - 40 %
above the market rate too.

It was simply a flashy sales presentation. And it worked too!

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

On Dec 20, 9:53 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:47 am, JeffB wrote:

Both images have good points, I can't say one is "obviously" better. And
they are not EXACTLY the same - the tiles around the edges indicate a
slightly different field of view between the images - which does affect
one's perception. The sink in the left images appears slightly closer -
which adds to its "presence".

I didn't move the camera between renderings. I didn't crop the images
carefully either. But you're right, upon further experimentation, that
minimal difference is noticeable. The human eye is amazing.
In a similar vein, we established during some tests at the National
Research Centre in Ottawa, that 1/10 of a dB difference in volume is
easily detectable by the human ear. Linearity and distortion levels
are another matter. We actually LIKE distortion if it is the 'right'
kind.





My opinions:
The right image appears more realistic, softer edges and shadows, more
texture. And a more natural contrast level. This could possibly pass as
a picture.

The left image has an unnaturally high contrast level. The colors are
more vivid, and there is less texture in the surfaces. The shadows are
unrealistically sharp. It is obviously computer generated. It also has
more "snap" - kind of a "better than real life" quality to it. (For any
film photographers reading - it looks like some Velvia landscapes -
more/better than was actually there.)

Both could be used for presentations - personal preference could pick
either one over the other - depending on the desired effect. If time is
the overriding consideration, go for the fastest (Ray tracing) - which
is certainly the left one...

Or if you want the right side look (Renderosity) can't you just queue up
the rendering tasks and let them run by themselves or overnight?

Timing is everything in this case. The Raytracing took about 10
seconds, the Radiosity (image on the right), 3+ minutes.

When doing a presentation, the potential client can select a colour/
pattern from a palette and have the countertop render in front of
their eyes on top of an image of their kitchen/service counter/display
as a background.

I have been doing this for years, and always did a couple of
renderings ( and they DID take overnight in the early days) and took
them to print. Now that computers are so much smaller and faster, it
would be nice to do this real time.
I guess the question is, is the 3 minute wait worth it for a slightly
more realistic image?
The fact that some people like the 'snap' of the left image, makes me
wonder if that 'snap', and the speed, would be more effective.

r

Do the 10 sec near real time ray trace to keep the discussion going.
The quick and dirty is probably good enough for a client to say,
"wrong color tile" or "change that". Once you get through the quick
decision tree, then start up the high quality render and use the
render time to work on the softer side the sale: any questions? Time
frame? and of course the upsell if applicable. Do you leave CD's
with images (watermarked with company info of course)?

That being said, I personnaly like the raytraced version. But I do
medical imaging day in and day out try to get sharper resolution of
boundaries between pieces-parts. And so what if it does look CG? It
IS CG, do you need to apologize for that? But then, most people can't
look at a floor plan and visualize a room. Heck, most people can't
look at an empty room and see what it would look like with furniture
and different colored walls.



hex
-30-

Right

On Dec 20, 2:58 pm, JeffB wrote:


Careful with those comments about audio distortion - you could ignite a
vicious flame war. And don't forget to use the special green marker pen
to keep the photons from leaking out the edges of your CDs... ;-)

I have yet to walk away from a discussion, heated or otherwise, even
slightly scratched.
When it comes to subjective evaluation, the tests and the documented
results, I have done my homework.
When separated from their pre-conceived ideas, even the very best of
those (usually self proclaimed) 'Golden Ears' will fall flat on their
faces. IOW, hide the stuff they are listening to behind acoustically
transparent curtains. Make sure that the volume levels are set very
precisely to identical levels, and I will wager whatever one likes
proving that a $200 power amp can't be told apart from a $5000.00
amplifier. (Assuming that both are decent quality products of similar
power)
More to the point, those Golden Ears will NOT be able to tell the
difference between speaker wires or green markers on the edge of CD's,
or even the difference between CD players.
There are (were) differences between electro-mechanical transducers.
Phono pick-ups, microphones, and loudspeakers. But those, also, will
astound the golden ears when they are deprived of the visual contact
of their mega-buck babies when a pair of $500, well designed, speakers
**** all over them.

My mentor, Dr. Floyd E. Toole shed a lot of light on the validity of
blind tests. (Fortunately, that also included a blind test of a
variety of scotch whiskies... again, when you don't know what you're
tasting, suddenly you forget all the reasons why you're supposed to
like that expensive single malt.)

I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.

r

"Robatoy" wrote:

I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.


Women's cosmetics, especially skin care, AKA: Pussy Paint.

Was in it for a while, talk about snake oil, nothing I know even comes
close.

Lew

On Dec 20, 5:08 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote:
I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.

Women's cosmetics, especially skin care, AKA: Pussy Paint.

Was in it for a while, talk about snake oil, nothing I know even comes
close.


Ohhh yes indeed.
That would be snake oil in the most literal sense of the word.
Pussy Paint aka War Paint. (They want to look good for US!)(Buy me a
fifth of bourbon, works too.)(I don't think Angela should read this,
but if she does, let me haste to point out that she doesn't need any
cosmetics.)

I tried wearing a menstrual pad once and STILL sucked at tennis.
I guess you can't believe anything coming out of Madison Ave anymore.

..

"Robatoy" wrote

I tried wearing a menstrual pad once and STILL sucked at tennis.
I guess you can't believe anything coming out of Madison Ave anymore.

It coulda been worse ... Tampex is a big advertiser.


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

On Dec 20, 5:44 pm, JeffB wrote:
Ahh - those repeatable, scientific tests that inconveniently intrude on
cherished beliefs. The fear that one might have wasted many thousands of
dollars might also be a factor. The really difficult task is to actually
change minds, instead of having the "Golden Ears" (or whomever) walk
away muttering about unfair test conditions, bias, or trickery. The Bob
Carver vs. Stereophile challenge/tests ended up in nasty litigation.


Last time I heard anything from Anthony Cordesman was when he was
waxing eloquently about the 'upside' of using depleted uranium in
artillery shells.

Who can forget Bob Carver? Or Harry Pearson? "Life is a minestrone,
Bob!"

I am oh-so glad that all this is oh-so yesterday.

"The bass was a bit plummy, but not in chocolate-y way. The mids were
decidedly gravelly" cooed Pearson whilst tugging on his flight
engineer's suit.

On Dec 20, 6:20 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote

I tried wearing a menstrual pad once and STILL sucked at tennis.
I guess you can't believe anything coming out of Madison Ave anymore.

It coulda been worse ... Tampex is a big advertiser.

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

I shoulda known better than to open one of your posts wile drinking
tea.
A heads-up woulda been nice too...*wipes keyboard* Sheeesh...LOL

"Robatoy" wrote:

Ohhh yes indeed.
That would be snake oil in the most literal sense of the word.
Pussy Paint aka War Paint. (They want to look good for US!)(Buy me a
fifth of bourbon, works too.)(I don't think Angela should read this,
but if she does, let me haste to point out that she doesn't need any
cosmetics.)

Cosmetics are strictly small potatoes compared to skin care.

Can still remember buying a lipstick for $1.50, selling for $15.00 and
it was not worth wasting time selling them. That was almost 20 years
ago.

I'm with you, soap and water is the best cosmetic going.

As far as Scotch is concerned, if it's 86 proof, I'm good to go.

Vodka needs to be 100 proof or else it makes lousy martinis.

I'm not much for either whiskey or bourbon, but when it comes to
sippin liquor, Wild Turkey and Rebel Yell are tough to beat.

Won't touch gin.

Lew

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/

On Dec 20, 7:06*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:


As far as Scotch is concerned, if it's 86 proof, I'm good to go.

I like a belt once in a while. In that vein I prefer either a 12 year
old Jameson or a solid double of Bushmills.
No ice.

Vodka needs to be 100 proof or else it makes lousy martinis.

V & Tonic 50/50 on ice is nice in the summer.

I'm not much for either whiskey or bourbon, but when it comes to
sippin liquor, Wild Turkey and Rebel Yell are tough to beat.

A friend of mine makes us Turkey Manhattans... they're okay but ****s
you up real quick... must be that 101 proof deal.

For sippin' thing, my dad and I drank a couple of brandies of various
pedigree every evening for years. He's not allowed any more because of
his meds.

Won't touch gin.

I've been told that **** will turn you gay and make you steal cars.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

A friend of mine makes us Turkey Manhattans... they're okay but
****s
you up real quick... must be that 101 proof deal.

Southern Conmfort. Go to bed sober, wake up hung over, or at least
that's the way it seemed back in the days of long ago.


For sippin' thing, my dad and I drank a couple of brandies of various
pedigree every evening for years. He's not allowed any more because of
his meds.

If I'm going to sip, it's Drambuie. Gotta keep those monks busy.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.

"What? You can't hear that artifact of the cone material?" G

You are so right.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:25:22 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.

I put Dr. Bose at the top.

Mark

On Dec 21, 7:50*am, Markem wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:25:22 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

wrote:
I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.

I put Dr. Bose at the top.

In blind listening tests, year after year, Bose speakers have never
placed well.
Their little radio is kinda cool insofar that it sounds bigger than it
is, but the price is totally ridiculous.
That thing could sell for a quarter of the price and they'd still make
out like bandits.
The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid
money.

But, if it is all legal if you can get away with it.

On Dec 21, 6:59*am, B A R R Y wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
*I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.

"What? You can't hear that artifact of the cone material?" *G

You are so right.

As long as it is linear crystal oxygen free.

"Markem" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:25:22 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

I can't think of an industry so rife with snake-oil salesmen as the
audio business.

I put Dr. Bose at the top.

And the Monster Cable folks at number two.

Robatoy wrote:

The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid
money.

At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.

I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to
performance. They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push
back when I brought them back for a full refund.

However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away.
Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other set
I've flown with.

On Dec 20, 10:53 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:47 am, JeffB wrote:

Both images have good points, I can't say one is "obviously" better. And
they are not EXACTLY the same - the tiles around the edges indicate a
slightly different field of view between the images - which does affect
one's perception. The sink in the left images appears slightly closer -
which adds to its "presence".

I didn't move the camera between renderings. I didn't crop the images
carefully either. But you're right, upon further experimentation, that
minimal difference is noticeable. The human eye is amazing.
In a similar vein, we established during some tests at the National
Research Centre in Ottawa, that 1/10 of a dB difference in volume is
easily detectable by the human ear. Linearity and distortion levels
are another matter. We actually LIKE distortion if it is the 'right'
kind.





My opinions:
The right image appears more realistic, softer edges and shadows, more
texture. And a more natural contrast level. This could possibly pass as
a picture.

The left image has an unnaturally high contrast level. The colors are
more vivid, and there is less texture in the surfaces. The shadows are
unrealistically sharp. It is obviously computer generated. It also has
more "snap" - kind of a "better than real life" quality to it. (For any
film photographers reading - it looks like some Velvia landscapes -
more/better than was actually there.)

Both could be used for presentations - personal preference could pick
either one over the other - depending on the desired effect. If time is
the overriding consideration, go for the fastest (Ray tracing) - which
is certainly the left one...

Or if you want the right side look (Renderosity) can't you just queue up
the rendering tasks and let them run by themselves or overnight?

Timing is everything in this case. The Raytracing took about 10
seconds, the Radiosity (image on the right), 3+ minutes.

When doing a presentation, the potential client can select a colour/
pattern from a palette and have the countertop render in front of
their eyes on top of an image of their kitchen/service counter/display
as a background.

I have been doing this for years, and always did a couple of
renderings ( and they DID take overnight in the early days) and took
them to print. Now that computers are so much smaller and faster, it
would be nice to do this real time.
I guess the question is, is the 3 minute wait worth it for a slightly
more realistic image?
The fact that some people like the 'snap' of the left image, makes me
wonder if that 'snap', and the speed, would be more effective.

r

Honestly, I think that you'll do better with leaving the 3 minute
option off the table. I've learned that if you give people to many
options, often they'll get into some kind of decision gridlock and
can't make up their mind. You're trying to sell them a product, and
they're not going to sit around making a decision every 3 minutes
while your computer churns away at fancy ass digital effects.

Keep it simple, keep it quick, and when everything's ready to go, you
can fancy it up if you want. In this particular case, you're
considering more than tripling your presentation length for an
extremely marginal improvement in something that is, at best, a
tangent to your overall presentation.

Just use the quick and dirty option and don't use the other one unless
you're preparing for the meeting, and want your bid to stand out a
little bit. The extra time may pay off, and it doesn't waste the
customer's time, only yours.

-Nathan

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid
money.

At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.

I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to performance.
They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push back when I
brought them back for a full refund.

However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away.
Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other set
I've flown with.

I recently had a problem with 901s from the 70's. I called Bose to find a
repair center. They asked me to describe the problem and they immediately
knew that it was caused by an adhesive breaking down. They sent me a new
pair, along with prepaid returning shipping.

How is that for stupid money?

On Dec 21, 3:38*pm, "Frank Drackman" wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in .. .

Robatoy wrote:

The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid
money.

At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.

I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to performance.
They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push back when I
brought them back for a full refund.

However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away.
Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other set
I've flown with.

I recently had a problem with 901s from the 70's. I called Bose to find a
repair center. *They asked me to describe the problem and they immediately
knew that it was caused by an adhesive breaking down. *They sent me a new
pair, along with prepaid returning shipping.

How is that for stupid money?

Still sound like crap.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 3:38 pm, "Frank Drackman" wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in
.. .

Robatoy wrote:

The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid
money.

At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.

I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to
performance.
They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push back when I
brought them back for a full refund.

However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away.
Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other set
I've flown with.

I recently had a problem with 901s from the 70's. I called Bose to find a
repair center. They asked me to describe the problem and they immediately
knew that it was caused by an adhesive breaking down. They sent me a new
pair, along with prepaid returning shipping.

How is that for stupid money?

Still sound like crap.

Maybe true, but what other audio companies would have sent free
replacements, including shipping, on a product that is 30 years old?

On Dec 21, 8:34*pm, "Frank Drackman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...
On Dec 21, 3:38 pm, "Frank Drackman" wrote:



"B A R R Y" wrote in
.. .

Robatoy wrote:

The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid
money.

At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.

I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to
performance.
They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push back when I
brought them back for a full refund.

However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away.
Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other set
I've flown with.

I recently had a problem with 901s from the 70's. I called Bose to find a
repair center. They asked me to describe the problem and they immediately
knew that it was caused by an adhesive breaking down. They sent me a new
pair, along with prepaid returning shipping.

How is that for stupid money?
Still sound like crap.

Maybe true, but what other audio companies would have sent free
replacements, including shipping, on a product that is 30 years old?

18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00... I suppose that's not too bad for PR,
considering the money they made on that profit in the last 30 years is
probably thousands.

Sorry, I don't have a kind word for them.

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

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 8:34 pm, "Frank Drackman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...
On Dec 21, 3:38 pm, "Frank Drackman" wrote:



"B A R R Y" wrote in
.. .

Robatoy wrote:

The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again,
stupid
money.

At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.

I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to
performance.
They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push back when I
brought them back for a full refund.

However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away.
Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other
set
I've flown with.

I recently had a problem with 901s from the 70's. I called Bose to find
a
repair center. They asked me to describe the problem and they
immediately
knew that it was caused by an adhesive breaking down. They sent me a new
pair, along with prepaid returning shipping.

How is that for stupid money?
Still sound like crap.

Maybe true, but what other audio companies would have sent free
replacements, including shipping, on a product that is 30 years old?

18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00... I suppose that's not too bad for PR,
considering the money they made on that profit in the last 30 years is
probably thousands.

Sorry, I don't have a kind word for them.

I am confused. What does "18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00" mean?