I think our fundamental disagreement here is that I think the main use for this is interactive graphics, and that's how it seems to be marketed, and you seem to

I think our fundamental disagreement here is that I think the main use for this is interactive graphics, and that's how it seems to be marketed, and you seem to think its main utility is as an art tool for generating SVGs. I personally think it would be a pretty awkward way to generate an SVG compared to the alternatives, since pulling the data out of the browser requires using dev tools or saving the entire pages' HTML, and if you don't care about being able to move a camera around then it's probably quicker just to draw what you want in inkscape. But if you want an interactive 3d thing and you don't care about self-intersecting objects than this is fine. > I don’t know what you mean here. Ray marching is a rendering technique, you can choose to do it in real time, or you can choose to take hours. Hours is really misrepresenting things. It's not ray tracing. It takes milliseconds. You can do it hundreds of times per second, with scenes that are vastly more rich and complicated than this can do. > Yes, exactly. You have to re-render a ray-marched image if you change the resolution. That is unlike SVG, which you can re-rasterize without re-rendering. Huh? That's a really weird distinction to make. Unless you mean "rendering" in the sense that web-devs often use it for writing tags, rasterizing and rendering are essentially the same thing. You have data and you need to convert it into pixels or blotches of ink. If you insist on thinking of "rendering" as having a definition of the scene, then the shader you would have which defines the shapes would essentially be the "rendering". In fact it'd look very similar to the javascript, other than being written in glsl. If I needed a ray marched scene on very fancy glossy printed paper I'd just rasterize it on a really big canvas and print that. It would take about ten milliseconds to generate that image. > Your straw man hypothetical eliminated all of Zdog’s functionality there. Not at all. It's perfectly fine if you want pseudo 3d in a browser. But a lot of people don't like depth sorting artifacts (I am among them). Not being able to intersect objects creates a very strict limit on what you can do. That's fine, but if you want something more flexible I was just mentioning that there's an alternative. I don't know why you're pushing back so hard on my suggestion that, specifically, if you want a 3d scene in a browser that has fewer limitations you can do that in an alternative way. You don't HAVE to. There are trade-offs. I just suggested the possibility. Signed distance fields aren't as well known as svgs are so I thought people would be interested in the concept. > What Zdog buys is a conversion from a 3d scene description to a 2d scene description, that’s the value for me, and the very thing that ray marching does not do. I mean, if it provides value for you to create art in that way that's great, do whatever you want. But I'm pretty sure if I polled 99/100 artists that wanted to create a static SVG file, the last thing they'd want to do is write javascript to place each object and then use the browser's dev tools to pull their data out of the SVG tag. (Most of them wouldn't even know how to do that). I mean if you don't want an interactive scene then there's much more flexible ways to create an SVG. (+ You'll notice in most of their examples, they're rendering to a canvas anyway, kind of making my point) I guess my overall point is that if you're making something for print or you need a content authoring tool, you're probably using an entirely different set of tools, and if you're making something to be consumed in a browser, then whether you use SVG or a webgl canvas, you can achieve the same effect to the person viewing your content.