It is my understanding that the bump_map simulates the grain and cracks in
the wood on a flat surface using lighting tricks, and the height field
actually creates a true 3D surface (virtually, of course).  It seems as if
both methods should yield similar results, but the HF image just looked
sharper (more detailed) to me.  And I would be very happy to receive any
additional information, clarifications, observations, tips, etc. that you
(or anyone else) would care to send my way.  :-)
.
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3b6603b4@news.povray.org...
> Cris Williams <wor### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> : It looks to me like you loose some detail when the bump_map method is
used.
> : The HF image seems more realistic.  The grain seems to be deeper and
more 3D
> : in the HF.  The differences are subtle, though.
>
>   Are you aware of what exactly does a bump_map do? Your text sounds a bit
> like you may not be completely sure. I (or someone else) can explain it if
> you want (it's rather interesting).
>
> --
> #macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
> rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
> ],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
> 7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message