Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Balls Render

Render of Balls

 * Reason:The image quality is high, the resolution is a good 1080p, and the picture adds significantly to the article by demonstrating the capabilities of V-Ray at raytracing. In addition, the picture is very aesthetically pleasing.
 * Articles this image appears in:Ray tracing (graphics); V-Ray
 * Creator:Mimigu


 * Support as nominator --Mimigu (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Well executed, and quite encylopedic at the articles where it appears. Good job!  Durova Charge! 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see neither the claimed aesthetic value, nor how this illustrates V-Ray particularly well. I understand that there is a tradition of using balls to illustrate raytracing abilities, but curved surfaces can be used to make far more interesting compositions. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Looks attractive, but the blurred effects and lighting is not the best for FP.  Zoo Fari  02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I like the way so many effects are demonstrated. I thought I was imagining a hexagonal aperture but that's labelled, so cool. I wish more of the image was in focus, but it's ok. Would prefer a slight crop off the left for balance (green ball is cut off, hence blue ball should be too). Stevage 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I probably lowered the f-number too much, causing the DOF to be too shallow. I had intended it to have a rather shallow DOF so that the hexagonal aperture can be observed. Also, the blur quality is rather low (meaning that blurred edges are slightly grainy), but if I had increased the number of samples further it would take much longer to render... this picture, as it is, took around 2 hours to render on my Asus M50VM-B1 laptop, and I don't have a faster computer.Mimigu (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we're in no rush. Unless you're worried about your laptop melting, why not increase the quality and render overnight? 2 hours is nothing in render terms. :) Stevage 06:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or give someone else the required files and instructions on how to render, then ask them to send back the finished product, if they have a faster PC. I can do it on my desktop (Core2Duo E6750, 2GB DDR2 PC6400, BFG/NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTS 320MB) if you like, doubtless somebody around here has a much more powerful machine, mine's over a year old. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't have V-Ray license, that will set you back 250 USD, and that's just the educational discounted version, otherwise you're looking at a grand. Hopefully you wouldn't have to buy Rhino on top of that... Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... I had assumed that V-Ray or an equivalent was freely licensed... d'oh. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I will re-render the picture again with higher settings (and possibly resolution, and I will reposition the camera so that the blue ball on the left is equally as cut off as the green ball on the right, or something like that. But not this week... I have exams. Mimigu (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not an interesting picture. Sorry, but I don't think it would be possible to make a more clichéd 3D rendering than colored spheres on a flat surface. How about a fire-breathing dragon or something? Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A fire-breathing dragon may not show the features of 3D raytracing as clearly, because surely the focus of a picture of a fire-breathing dragon would be the fire effects and the surface of the dragon (e.g. scales). Fire is not generated using raytracing (and is in fact in some cases applied after the model has rendered), and the surface of the dragon would better exemplify techniques such as texture mapping rather than stuff like fresnel reflections... whoever looks at a fire-breathing dragon to notice subtle reflections on its scales? Moreover, a picture of a fire-breathing dragon probably cannot effectively demonstrate the depth of field in the rendered scene (We do want the whole dragon to be in focus), not to mention the shape of the aperture. As such, the fire-breathing dragon would fail to demonstrate the features of raytracing which I had intended to demonstrate with this picture. Spheres, on the other hand, though not necessarily as thrilling to observe, demonstrate, among other features, depth of field and fresnel reflections better than a picture of a fire-breathing dragon would. Thus the picture of spheres may be considered more encyclopedic, in my opinion, as it is more informative than merely entertaining. Also of note is that the spheres do not rest on a "flat surface" as you termed it. Each tile on the tiled floor is in fact slightly convex, with filleted edges. Mimigu (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you took my criticism a bit too literally :) How about a vase of flowers, if you want a realistic example of a scene that could be both interesting and demonstrate numerous 3D rendering effects. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, what's the deal with the weird doubling effect going on in the floor reflection? Is that a rendering bug? Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Each tile on the floor is convex, so it reflects like a curved mirror. Mimigu (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Drawing a surface and spheres is very simple, even if the rendering took hours. I don't think it shows any optical effect simulated by ray tracing except reflection. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look closer. The depth of field effects are obvious. The blue-purple ball left of centre, foreground shows the hexagonal aperture. There's two. Stevage 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)