I need your votes for SciFair project!

[Lahire149]

Abstract, or you can just read what I posted below:

Science Fair Abstract​

The purpose of this project is to show the difference in the level of realism in 3D lighting, when photon tracing is compared to shadow mapping. My hypothesis is that photon tracing looks more realistic due to the more accurate shadows. The constants are light placement, model and model placement, and camera angle. The control group is an shadowed model, that will just use an ambient light. The placed light's attributes will be changed from photon lighting to depth map lighting, and the render (picture) will be made of each of them.​

The results are measured by a poll of people that will look the the two rendered models and will choose which one looks more realistic. The model that receives the most votes will then be the model that has the most realistic lighting. The results are that _____ looks more realistic, and therefore _____ is the better lighting style. If I had to redo this experiment I would use more complex models with detailed textures applied to them.​

Basically I need 25 votes or more (so everyone please vote, even if you don't have a good comprehension of this project).

Project:
Use maya to make renders using different lighting types.

Type one:
Depth Maps

Type two:
Ray Tracing (Photon Tracing)

What you need to do:
Look at both pictures carefully, and then choose which one has the best lighting. Primarilly vote on this based on the shadows on the left of the pictures. And respond with a short summary (in your own words; a few sentences) telling why you thought one looked better. The post summary is optional, but preferred. All I really need are votes!

Renders To Vote On:

Type One (depth):


Type Two (ray tracing):

 

[Dalamari]

Type 1, the shadows in the 2nd one looked too bright, the 2nd one looked a lot darker...

 

[Insano]

Type 2: In the first picture, there seems to be almost no light passing.

 

[JellyWorld]

Type 2

 

[clarky003]

Type 2 simply because the shadows in the first image look too grainy with less definition.

 

[Steven]

Type two.

It's absoultly amazing how real they can make 3D graphics look these days.

 

[TheHamster22]

I can't really tell the difference

 

[Cooper]

Type 1:

The second pic's objects backsides look to bright to be in shadows.

 

[StardogChampion]

Type 2: It looks a lot brighter and nicer overall.

 

[JNightshade]

Type 2 looks much more realistic to me. The shadows are far more accurate and defined, and the lighting isn't exaggurated (as in the first).

 

[ríomhaire]

I think the pieces look better in 2 and the board in 1.

 

[Beerdude26]

Type 2 because the lighting is far more correct (the amount and shadows)
EDIT: check out www.pov-ray.com if you want to see some slamming ray-traced stuff.
Example : http://www.povray.org/i/hof/office-13.jpg
No, that isn't a photograph.

 

[Evo]

Second one. It's a close call, but looks more realistic. Prefer the first one though D:

And, Beerdude, that is fukin unbelievable if not a photo!

 

[ríomhaire]

Type 2 because the lighting is far more correct (the amount and shadows)
EDIT: check out www.pov-ray.com if you want to see some slamming ray-traced stuff.
Example : http://www.povray.org/i/hof/office-13.jpg
No, that isn't a photograph.

It's very good but it doesn't look 100% real.

 

[Ren.182]

Type 2: The shadows look a bit more realistic. The first ones look kinda blurry like some old videogame.

 

[Nat Turner]

I like type 2.

 

[Dan]

Type 2. But you shouldn't have said which picture was which. Because we might be influenced by which one is "supposed" to look more realistic. It should just be picture 1 and 2 with no mention of the lighting method.

Also, we are kind of a biased sample because most people here probably have looked at a lot more 3d graphics than your average person. For example my dad actually can't tell the difference between CGI in movies and real footage.

 

[Kamikazie]

type 2.