 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-5-2017 18:37, Bald Eagle wrote:
> I was talking with Stephen about some scene elements,
> and was wondering if there were a way to have directly lighted surfaces of an
> object show one texture, and any unlighted / indirectly lighted surfaces have
> another.
>
> The obvious way would be to construct the object in 2 parts - split by a plane
> the light source is perpendicular to, and assign each half a different texture.
> Though I was hoping for something a bit more elegant, easier, and allowing a
> smoother transition.
>
>
>
>
Would aoi (angle of incidence) be the answer?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> On 16-5-2017 18:37, Bald Eagle wrote:
> > I was talking with Stephen about some scene elements,
> > and was wondering if there were a way to have directly lighted surfaces of an
> > object show one texture, and any unlighted / indirectly lighted surfaces have
> > another.
> >
> > The obvious way would be to construct the object in 2 parts - split by a plane
> > the light source is perpendicular to, and assign each half a different texture.
> > Though I was hoping for something a bit more elegant, easier, and allowing a
> > smoother transition.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Would aoi (angle of incidence) be the answer?
No; `aoi` depends on the angle between the surface and the camera ray.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-5-2017 12:13, clipka wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 16-5-2017 18:37, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>> I was talking with Stephen about some scene elements,
>>> and was wondering if there were a way to have directly lighted surfaces of an
>>> object show one texture, and any unlighted / indirectly lighted surfaces have
>>> another.
>>>
>>> The obvious way would be to construct the object in 2 parts - split by a plane
>>> the light source is perpendicular to, and assign each half a different texture.
>>> Though I was hoping for something a bit more elegant, easier, and allowing a
>>> smoother transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Would aoi (angle of incidence) be the answer?
>
> No; `aoi` depends on the angle between the surface and the camera ray.
>
>
Would there be a way to 'tweak' this somehow? I know that the obvious
answer is 'no' but I keep wondering...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/16/2017 12:37 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> I was talking with Stephen about some scene elements,
> and was wondering if there were a way to have directly lighted surfaces of an
> object show one texture, and any unlighted / indirectly lighted surfaces have
> another.
>
> The obvious way would be to construct the object in 2 parts - split by a plane
> the light source is perpendicular to, and assign each half a different texture.
> Though I was hoping for something a bit more elegant, easier, and allowing a
> smoother transition.
>
>
>
>
If the shapes / light involved are not too complex, perhaps using the
new to 3.7.1 user_defined pigment feature and layered textures where the
transmission value for the top texture{pigment} is set up to depend upon
the light to shape surface "aoi" relationship...
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
See animation posted in binaries/animations.
Looks like slope {point_at .....} works pretty well :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.05.2017 um 13:04 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> Would aoi (angle of incidence) be the answer?
>>
>> No; `aoi` depends on the angle between the surface and the camera ray.
>>
>>
> Would there be a way to 'tweak' this somehow? I know that the obvious
> answer is 'no' but I keep wondering...
You mean, something like the `slope` pattern with the (new in 3.7)
`point_at` syntax? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[somewhat off-topic...]
Sorry to ask a dumb question, but is the 'aoi' pattern the same as a 'proximity'
pattern? Do the two descriptors actually mean the same thing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-5-2017 15:08, clipka wrote:
> Am 17.05.2017 um 13:04 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>>>> Would aoi (angle of incidence) be the answer?
>>>
>>> No; `aoi` depends on the angle between the surface and the camera ray.
>>>
>>>
>> Would there be a way to 'tweak' this somehow? I know that the obvious
>> answer is 'no' but I keep wondering...
>
> You mean, something like the `slope` pattern with the (new in 3.7)
> `point_at` syntax? ;)
>
Hmm... that's something I have not tried yet...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-5-2017 17:30, Kenneth wrote:
> [somewhat off-topic...]
>
> Sorry to ask a dumb question, but is the 'aoi' pattern the same as a 'proximity'
> pattern? Do the two descriptors actually mean the same thing?
>
>
I would say no. As Christoph rightly point out, the aoi pattern
considers the angle between the camera ray and the surface of the
object. the proximity pattern is a sophisticated slope pattern as far as
I understand it (which is very fragmentary).
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> I would say no. As Christoph rightly point out, the aoi pattern
> considers the angle between the camera ray and the surface of the
> object. the proximity pattern is a sophisticated slope pattern as far as
> I understand it (which is very fragmentary).
>
Thanks. That actually clears up a long-standing mystery for me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
