Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!gumby.dsd.trw.com!deneva!news
From: thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Scene Description Standard (Renderman isn't good enough)
Message-ID: <2825EFC3.2793@deneva.sdd.trw.com>
Date: 7 May 91 00:07:31 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.211131.7166@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: news@deneva.sdd.trw.com
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 23

In article <1991Apr30.211131.7166@nntp-server.caltech.edu>  
woolstar@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John D. Woolverton) writes:
>    Conceptually, Renderman seems to be designed like PostScript.
> One renderman file, one image.  While this works for the printed
> page, animations and 3D graphics have continuity across frames
> that RenderMan cannot describe or take advantage of.
>
> 	One model format that describes position and motion
> of objects in a scene.

With some stuff edited out.

I wonder, in light of these comments, what NeXT and Pixar have done
to produce Interactive RenderMan? NeXT worked with Adobe to move
PostScript to Display PostScript. Some of the obvious issues were
addressed or ignored, but it was one stab at moving a static
description language into a more complex and dynamic interface. I
would anticipate that Interactive RenderMan addressed some of the
obvious issues.

Comments? Does anyone know status and specifications of IRM?

Mark R. Thomsen