File talk:Glasses 800 edit.png

Render time
What was the render time for this picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.231.141 (talk • contribs).
 * 560 hours. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-02 00:19


 * Damn... thats incredible... Ghostalker


 * Using what computer, a 486? That's over 23 days! ---Majestic- 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * &#42;Fails to comprehend.&#42; Great picture though.-- Mark (Talk | Contribs | Email) 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for responding... I really was questioning if that was real or not. Your response confirms it, but I have trouble **not** believing my eyes.  Thanks for the pic, this is what makes wikipedia worthwhile.  151.151.21.103 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that this image was to Featured status on Commons where 1/3 voted against it. Shawnc 01:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow!
I can't even take pictures that look that good; the 23-day total rendering time was worth it.

It just looks so real; you could have told me you took the picture with a camera and I wouldn't have noticed! Craig3410 05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an incredible picture. raptor 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir, I didn't really think this was a 3-D rendered thing. So be happy! You fooled me into thinking it was a photograph. --Kitty who? 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It really does look real. Excellent work :) --WikiSlasher 10:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an amazing picture. You should be proud of yourself! ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I love the picture too, and thought that it was just another well-taken photograph. To the maker, just...wow! :) --CrazyLegsKC 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

23 DAYS!! Holy shit! Sweetfreek 20:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool
if you guys did not tell me that this was Raytraced, i would believe it's true

lobotron This is fantastic! 23 days as well! This is one of the best CGI images i have seen! Well Done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.189.9 (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rendering of alcohol
I find this picture incredibly realistic, but I can't help feeling that the glasses contents are just red and yellow water rather than, say, wine and whisky. Are there any technical difficulties in rendering realistic-looking alcohol, or was this by design? 84.98.220.28 10:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you talking about? Alcohol (or, more to the point, ethanol) is a clear, colorless liquid. Are you trying to tell me you can tell it apart from water by looking at it? — Mütze 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's talking about the meniscus? Here it is clear, as it would be for coloured water; for red wine, it would be red. Also wine is more opaque, I guess? I don't think it's worth another 560 hours to render these small details. Gorman 08:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * considering it's extensive use, it might be. 24.205.50.170 (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the main difference is the opacity of the liquid, for example, compare with this picture of red wine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tempranillowine.jpg 67.225.20.95 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Opacity, residue, beer head, etc.. It's really cool, but very "still"198.52.130.137 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add this to computer graphics
Could someone please add this to 3D_Computer_Graphics? Thankx. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.249.77.167 (talk • contribs).

that is unbelievably good!