PJF certainly did imply such things, Rayraz. more than that, he outright stated that real light can't be simulated on a computer. scroll up. i'll not be forced into some kind of mental submission with the oldbies around here, but do you see what my entrance into this thread has done?

i've made all you "oldbies" actually stick together on this issue! and after all the trash you've talked about Pumeco through the years... all too easy.

anyway, no, I don't think 1,000,000 photons would be enough to create realism at the resolution our EYES work at. not even close. lucky for us, we're dealing with computers with much more finite resolutions, rayraz, so that many photons isn't necessary. the proof is in the pudding. look at all the wonderful, beautiful renders out there! some are from Bryce, no less... but the most photorealistic ones are, guess what, from photon-mappers.

this wasn't intended to turn all the brycers defensive, which is very easy in these forums due to general underdog insecurities, but to point out that there are many issues with pro-render TECHNICALLY that make it unfeasible as a tool. consider it as a paint-brush with one of those stray bristles you just can't get rid of.

and i'll have you know that i'm an excellent Brycer myself! i merely brought up important questions. i feel I've had them answered, and the general answer in this thread to my questions has been :

"So!"

Message edited on: 02/16/2006 06:32