[Radiance-general] animation

[Peter Apian-Bennewitz]

Carsten Bauer wrote:
... 
> The Radiance ambient treatment is somewhat awkward to handle, and I've
> noticed that people without a sound scientific background have
> difficulties with the overwhelming features and parameters and all the
> thinking behind it, ...
It's true. All the options are awful. However, not a single solution,
both efficient and general, is known that solves the underlying,
fundamental light "rendering equation", without hand tweaking the
algorithms by specifying parameters. That's where technology stands now. 
Tweaking simulation to do non-realistic images doesn't really help any
designer in finding a solution that is actually realistic.
...
> Of course, Radiance is aimed very much at realistic image generation,
> and it would be nice to have more "artistic freedom" in using it. This
> is a totally different matter. ...
I'm not quite certain that'll become a main-stream direction of Radiance
development, as the physical quality is the prime motivation to use it.

My experiences with rayshade where excellent- Much easier, many more
features (motion blur built in, more powerful input format, easier
texture mapping). POVray is probably even more powerful and easier to
customize. Both are in the public domain. There are many converters, or
converters could be build to go from one rendering systems to the other.
There's nothing wrong in using another package. There's nothing wrong in
playing with scenes and "artistic freedom" lighting in spaces. There
just aren't convincing reasons why Radiance should leave the path of
strict physical correct simulation.

-Peter