eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (01/31/91)
In article <28420@cs.yale.edu> musgrave-forest@cs.yale.edu (F. Ken Musgrave) writes: > Holly Rushmeier writes note about new European journal removed >>I'd like to see the discussion move forward in time >>from talking about an image that was after all published 7 yrs ago. >>Also, in case no one has mentioned it, the 1984 picture and the >>side by side conference rooms Greg Ward did appear in Foley, >>van Dam , Feiner and Hughes. >>And finally, as far as Turing tests go, there is only one paper >>that I know of where anybody did direct side by side tests of >>real and synthetic images (our obscure TOG article from '86). If >>people on the net know of similar experiments since then, unpublished Execellent reference to Greg. > Hear hear! - that kind of side-by-side comparison, particularly in the >kind of carefully controlled environment of the radiosity experiments, >approaches the real practice of Science. I'd like to move on, too. But historical notes: 1980: SIGGRAPH had Nelson Max (LLNL) showing some very impressive models of metal pieces deforming. While these are not models of radiosity, they have significance combining information in several fields materials science as well other other aspects of physics. Check earlier SIGGRAPH sidesets. They were side by side comparisons of REAL metal pieces and rendered models. Then before a film like "LA the Movie" there was "Economars Tours" [a non-Max, LLNL SIGGRAPH film]. Just check the old slide sets. What I wonder is: if we are still roughly in the same place 10 years from now (perhaps we generate images faster, but marginal gains in 'quality') and have people looking back in the same way (forgetting earlier work). --e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene AMERICA: CHANGE IT OR LOSE IT.
musgrave-forest@cs.yale.edu (F. Ken Musgrave) (02/28/91)
>From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) > >What I wonder is: if we are still roughly in the same place 10 years from now >(perhaps we generate images faster, but marginal gains in 'quality') and >have people looking back in the same way (forgetting earlier work). The gains in quality will be more than marginal, mark my word. But the cost will grow exponentially. (Fortunately, so does comuputing power.) As a practitioner of if-it-looks-good-it's-ok graphics, I see that there is currently still plenty of room for that kind of work. Increasingly, however, it will be supplanted by scientifically sound approaches; this will earn our field a more respected reputation. This is both good and bad: as the field matures, "good" research will become more challenging to do. We're still picking up the apples off the ground, to a large extent; not yet having to climb for them... Ignorance will persist. Ken -- If you can not get rid of a family skeleton, you may as well make it dance. - George Bernard Shaw