Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!yale!quasi-eli!cs.yale.edu!musgrave-forest From: musgrave-forest@cs.yale.edu (F. Ken Musgrave) Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: Re: PoolTable Turing Test Photo Message-ID: <28386@cs.yale.edu> Date: 26 Jan 91 13:33:58 GMT References: <7926@castle.ed.ac.uk> <28220@cs.yale.edu> <1991Jan25.142659.3914@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Sender: news@cs.yale.edu Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: systemsy-gw.cs.yale.edu Originator: musgrave@bugs.CS.Yale.Edu In article <1991Jan25.142659.3914@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> stam@dgp.toronto.edu (Jos Stam) writes: >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). Yes, the reference to fractals in my posting was a bit indicative of my peculiar world view. Fractals are the most compact way of describing complexity in nature. "Dirt", in order to be realistic, should be complex. It can also be quite heterogeneous and thereby non-fractal, as it is the quality of self-similarity that characterizes fractals. By the same token, no simple texture can represent dirt well. A hand-painted texture map is trivial; you might as well scan photographs of dirt and scuffing. If it's not described with a formula or an algorithm it's not computer graphics, it's art or craft. (Again, I'm showing my prejudice in favor of procedural models.) Have a good close look at a "trompe l'oeil" still life painting (e.g., Ken Davies) to get an example of the kind of complexity involved in artful depiction of dirt and wear. We have a long way to come, in computer graphics. Yet the inclusion of such imperfections is essential to the computer graphics "Turing test", and to the aesthetic flexibility of the computer as a medium for visual art. Soap Boxken -- The Fundamental Dilemma of Existentialism: Eschew obfuscation. Ignore alien orders.