nad@cl.cam.ac.uk (Neil Dodgson) (01/21/91)
In article <7926@castle.ed.ac.uk> aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes: >robert@sgi.com sez in <1991Jan19.031630.3683@odin.corp.sgi.com> >>Of course, as others have pointed out, the balls and table are too >>perfect, which is another imperfection. For those who want to look at this picture one place it's reproduced is as Plate III.16 of Foley, van Dam, Feiner and Hughes [many other places too...] >I saw another Turing-test which was a photo of a classroom and a >raytraced copy. The only way you could tell the difference was because >the board was dirty in one. If this is plate III.19 of Foley et al then the big difference I found was that the wood grain on the table looked fake; the SECOND thing I noticed that the blackboard looked too clean. One thought is that the table in the real picture has fake wood grain (looks like some sort of `plasticy' veneer that's supposed to look like wood grain) while the table in the artifical picture looks like it is texture mapped from an image of real wood grain -- we're so used to seeing the fake stuff that the real stuff looks wrong??? Another thought is that the second table's wood grain is a perfect mirror image of the first table's wood grain, a sure sign that something is `wrong'. Neil Dodgson, | nad@cl.cam.ac.uk Computer Laboratory, | Pembroke Street, | Cambridge, U.K. CB2 3QG |