5 ms·

Realism in regards to rendering software has nothing to do with realism in the final product. Pixar and Disney have been among the most influential and revolut

Realism in regards to rendering software has nothing to do with realism in the final product. Pixar and Disney have been among the most influential and revolutionary companies in terms of rendering techniques. And most of their products are stylized. Stylized looks come from the assets, not from the rendering engine. The rendering engine gives you physically correct light interactions (which you almost always want, and even then you can turn knobs to make it non physically correct or outright do whatever you want using shaders), things like fur/hair rendering, fluid simulations, volumetrics etc. All these things can be tweaked to non realistic values by the artist. If you want a movie/game where characters are made of wax, or fire, or smoke, or something even crazier with shaders, you want as a basis a renderer that is physically based and uses mathematical models based on the real world, and then tweak from there.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Then your art will always resemble the physical reality we already know. Computers and mathematics enable us to render literally anything. And all you can think of are things you see every day. I'm looking at wax, fire and smoke right now, there's a candle on my desk. If it's realism I wanted, I could just stare at that (and sometimes do).
- redox99 5y ago
  Could you give me an example of what you have in mind that current rendering engines can't handle?
  - creata 5y ago
    An example would be good, but I think hypertele-Xii's point isn't about what engines can handle, but about where engine developers are (and aren't) spending their money and time, and what they're making easy for users to do --- that if they make realism easy, then that's where users will go.
  - silentguy 5y ago
    Not OP, but I think rendering scenarios where light doesn't follow straight lines would be problematic for current rendering engines. Also, some hypothetical portal or other dimension scenarios.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Sure. Here's someone developing an engine capable of rendering infinite, fractal worlds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MjZbGbi4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MjZbGbi4I Here's someone developing an engine with hyperbolic geometry (though dressed in mundane setting): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYfWfrk5P7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYfWfrk5P7w Mirror Drop is an abstract art puzzle game that's kind of difficult to define: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1zHgYUE9HY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1zHgYUE9HY Here's a game where the speed of light is simulated and variable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu7jA8EHi_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu7jA8EHi_0 The primary point of my argument is that we don't have things in mind that current rendering engines can't handle, precisely because our current engines are so hell-bent on replicating reality. Why dream of what your tools can't make?

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

Then your art will always resemble the physical reality we already know. Computers and mathematics enable us to render literally anything. And all you can think of are things you see every day. I'm looking at wax, fire and smoke right now, there's a candle on my desk. If it's realism I wanted, I could just stare at that (and sometimes do).

redox99 5y ago
Could you give me an example of what you have in mind that current rendering engines can't handle?
- creata 5y ago
  An example would be good, but I think hypertele-Xii's point isn't about what engines can handle, but about where engine developers are (and aren't) spending their money and time, and what they're making easy for users to do --- that if they make realism easy, then that's where users will go.
- silentguy 5y ago
  Not OP, but I think rendering scenarios where light doesn't follow straight lines would be problematic for current rendering engines. Also, some hypothetical portal or other dimension scenarios.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Sure. Here's someone developing an engine capable of rendering infinite, fractal worlds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MjZbGbi4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MjZbGbi4I Here's someone developing an engine with hyperbolic geometry (though dressed in mundane setting): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYfWfrk5P7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYfWfrk5P7w Mirror Drop is an abstract art puzzle game that's kind of difficult to define: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1zHgYUE9HY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1zHgYUE9HY Here's a game where the speed of light is simulated and variable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu7jA8EHi_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu7jA8EHi_0 The primary point of my argument is that we don't have things in mind that current rendering engines can't handle, precisely because our current engines are so hell-bent on replicating reality. Why dream of what your tools can't make?