[Hervé]

But the artist in me really likes dirt and stuff ........ Dirt can be great and Dirt can be devastating .....

[deadalvs]

here's the link of that hitler bunker rendering we talked about...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread. ... ge=1&pp=15

the thread:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=16745

* * *

deadalvs

[-Adrian]

i'm interested why people render a picture for days which could be taken just outside of the doorstep. maybe it's too philosophic.

What is "too" philosophic, how does 110% philosophy feel li.. just kidding

Very good question actually, it really made me think. There is without a doubt a certain thrill to artificially replicate things we see in the material world, even if we could just photograph them or even hold the real thing in our hands (!). I remember this wonderful animation where someone integrated very odd looking, living plants into real footage of nature, really neat. Maybe i'm gonna focus on things like that in the future, the chrome ball method to capture the lighting situation of the scene in HDR seems like a helpful method.

[deadalvs]

too philosophic...

well.

* * *

i think human beings delivered a special kind of egoism or domination towards all they can control. it is indeed a very special «perversion» to be able to mimic, make real, imagine or dominate different pictures that this person's mind created.
some people draw sexy cartoony girls with large eyes and unnatural large breasts because they can never ever meet one of these girls.
others are strongly attracted to create surreal/mathematical structures and their phantasm (this is indeed a very philosophical topic too because it addresses all the time our three dimensions, if god/devil existed, where we come from and where we will go; for example the Klein's bottle), the third people search for salvation in violent game worlds. some even search for little children on the internet, raping them imaginarily, or performing it in the real world.

all this are only a small fraction of pictures that were created originally in a (maybe corrupted) mind but become this «special reality» for that individual person.
what is then 110% reality. for me, this is a state of reality that accepts no more changes. it's an imaginary (!), constructed state without relations to time or a physis. it's so-called metaphysical.

i have never seen a material that never gets dirty or a scratchless piece of marble - and (imagine!) i think none of You have seen either - but really most of the pictures we produce show these exact features.
people that have no clue of rendering that look at our rendering (when we proudly say "it's rendered with maxwell, the lightsimulator!") say: it looks cool but somehow strangely clean. for me as a person, this is like unsatisfactory because my work CAN NOT be read as an individual imagination (coming from within me) or a piece of art which obviously isn't so-called «photoreal». this disturbs me and leaves me with a feeling of being not understood. and i felt like this a lot with cg graphics i did... i feel not satisfied like this.
obviously, people in arch-viz (as i do most of my time, too) have to sell a product and earn money with it, and they don't care so much about their produced images MAYBE... and here's the parallel to the guy photographing outside. it's HIS picture, an indivudual piece of art expressing precisely the desired content and is never ever reproducable! photographs have a soul, they are closer to nature. renderings for me seem always colder/cleaner and are closer to the mind of the artist.

* * *

if we talk about a rendering that shows a perfect-clean image without dust, rust, scratches or any type of natural anomaly, then we talk about a desired, optimal, imaginary or utopian picture of the portrayed content and thus has only a fraction shared with our reality.

* * *

deadalvs

[-Adrian]

too philosophic...
well.

I was joking in referal to my former comment of "110% realism", this time i understood you right away, though i'm not really experienced in the field of philosophy.

Very clear now what bothers you about CG, but the "real" world gets its authenticy, beauty and ugliness in your brain aswell, it's just waves of matter out there, and maybe not even that. In that sense Zidane made Materazzi's comment hurt if you know what i mean.

some people draw sexy cartoony girls with large eyes and unnatural large breasts because they can never ever meet one of these girls.

Yes, an oddly widespread pheonema, i do not share this specific esthetic sense and thus wonder where its roots lie. Here 110% Reality sounds spot on.

if we talk about a rendering that shows a perfect-clean image without dust, rust, scratches or any type of natural anomaly [...]

Thank god though, that this is history