Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!stam
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
From: stam@dgp.toronto.edu (Jos Stam)
Subject: Re: PoolTable Turing Test Photo
Message-ID: <1991Jan25.142659.3914@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Organization: DGP, Dynamic Graphics Project, University of Toronto
References: <22705@well.sf.ca.us> <1991Jan19.031630.3683@odin.corp.sgi.com> <7926@castle.ed.ac.uk> <28220@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 91 19:26:59 GMT
Lines: 23

F. Ken Musgrave writes:
>Paul Crowley writes:
>>
>>Has anyone done any work on making things look dirty and worn? 
>>Everything in the computer-graphic world is shiny and new.
>
>  In my images, I work my tail off to make things not appear too "computer-
>perfect".  This is relatively easy to do with fractal models of nature.
>
>  Unfortunately, not all complexity in nature is fractal.  Fractals generate
>mondo complexity form a simple description; the kind of complexity I observe
>in old chalkboards, worn poolballs, asphault, etc., is just not (very) fractal.
>Thus it may require a lot more work to imitate convincingly.
>
Why are fractals so important? Any stochastic model will do. One way to add
"dirt" is by texture mapping or solid texturing. (see for example the cover
of the Renderman manual).

I wouldn't mind seeing more dirt in computer generated images, just for
the sake of variety. By analogy, figurative art is not only restricted to 
hyperrealism.

Jos