On 09/01/2016 11:52 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.09.2016 um 16:46 schrieb William F Pokorny:
>
>> FYI - I was able to track the change in brilliance > 1 behavior all the
>> way back to commit :
>>
>> 54b283a - Improved finish features for more realism:
>>
>> of July 23, 2014!
>>
>> Good news is I believe refactor/texture has it right.
>
> That commit shouldn't have changed a thing for existing scenes; all the
> added features should require extra keywords to enable: Radiosity
> support for brilliance, for instance, should require `brilliance on` in
> the radiosity block.
>
>
> BTW, with all the updates you have sent, I notice that I'm losing track
> of which differences in output you've noticed between our "cornerstone"
> versions (official 3.7.0, feature/texture branch, and recent master
> branch), what features you have found to be involved in those
> differences, and what you have already managed to dig up about the exact
> commit that changed the behaviour. If you could give me a summary, that
> would be highly welcome.
>
> (Sorry if I'm pestering you with this; I want you to know that your
> research into this matter is very much appreciated.)
>
In summary:

With radiosity on, there are smallish radiosity differences between 
3.7.0-stable and any 3.7.1 version on or after commit c891131. At the 
moment I think these are ignorable as the cost of that fix.

With radiosity off, finish statements with brilliance>1.0 are 
different/dimmer in 3.7.1 versions other than your latest 
3.7.1-alpha.8738139 (refactor/texture). This change in behavior happened 
with commit 54b283a as the commit prior (9b10411) matches 3.7.0-stable. 
The scene file elsewhere attached to this thread can be used to 
reproduce this result - though note you'll have to set the version to 
3.7 as both commits came before the change to 3.7.1.

I am running on on Ubuntu 16.04.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.09.2016 um 18:28 schrieb William F Pokorny:

> In summary:
> 
> With radiosity on, there are smallish radiosity differences between
> 3.7.0-stable and any 3.7.1 version on or after commit c891131. At the
> moment I think these are ignorable as the cost of that fix.

Hm... they might be due to the fix affecting the positions of the
radiosity samples gathered during pretrace. But I'm not entirely
satisfied about this yet.

> With radiosity off, finish statements with brilliance>1.0 are
> different/dimmer in 3.7.1 versions other than your latest
> 3.7.1-alpha.8738139 (refactor/texture). This change in behavior happened
> with commit 54b283a as the commit prior (9b10411) matches 3.7.0-stable.
> The scene file elsewhere attached to this thread can be used to
> reproduce this result - though note you'll have to set the version to
> 3.7 as both commits came before the change to 3.7.1.

If that is so, then the conclusion I'd draw is that I probably messed up
something in 54b283a when introducing the advanced finish features, and
fixed it during texture refactoring without realizing and/or remembering it.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/01/2016 12:43 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.09.2016 um 18:28 schrieb William F Pokorny:
>
>> In summary:
>>
>> With radiosity on, there are smallish radiosity differences between
>> 3.7.0-stable and any 3.7.1 version on or after commit c891131. At the
>> moment I think these are ignorable as the cost of that fix.
>
> Hm... they might be due to the fix affecting the positions of the
> radiosity samples gathered during pretrace. But I'm not entirely
> satisfied about this yet.
>

I am not myself sure it explains all of what I see with radiosity, but I 
believe that commit at least a partly the cause.

>> With radiosity off, finish statements with brilliance>1.0 are
>> different/dimmer in 3.7.1 versions other than your latest
>> 3.7.1-alpha.8738139 (refactor/texture). This change in behavior happened
>> with commit 54b283a as the commit prior (9b10411) matches 3.7.0-stable.
>> The scene file elsewhere attached to this thread can be used to
>> reproduce this result - though note you'll have to set the version to
>> 3.7 as both commits came before the change to 3.7.1.
>
> If that is so, then the conclusion I'd draw is that I probably messed up
> something in 54b283a when introducing the advanced finish features, and
> fixed it during texture refactoring without realizing and/or remembering it.
>

FYI. I've done some additional spot checking of cases where results were 
changing. With these, I turned off radiosity and edited materials so 
brillance was never more than 1.0. At least in the handful checked this 
way, 3.7.0 -> 3.7.1 -> refactor/texture results compare well.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

The texture refactoring has progressed some more; in addition to the
features mentioned earlier, testing would be welcome for:

- Finish properties: Nothing should have changed here.

- Smooth meshes and other objects that "fake" a smooth surface: The
handling of surface normals /has/ changed, and should be more
well-behaved; most notably I should have gotten rid of the
interior_texture-on-outside artifacts!

Again, a source code-only version can be found here:

    https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/tree/refactor/texture


Am 10.08.2016 um 01:55 schrieb clipka:
> Folks,
> 
> I have a special development version that needs exhaustive testing of
> complex textures, so if you have a scene that uses wild combinations of
> the following features (and you happen to be using Unix), it would be
> greatly appreciated if you could give it a shot:
> 
> - patterned textures
> - material_map
> - layered textures
> - overriding the texture of objects
> - non-canonical syntax to define textures (e.g specifying `pigment`
> directly on an object)
> - any other texture-related stuff you can think of
> 
> The version in question can be found here:
> 
>   https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/tree/refactor/texture
> 
> (source code only at this time)
> 
> Also, I expect more follow-up versions to be coming, so I might ask you
> to re-test with the same scenes later.
>

Post a reply to this message

On 09/05/2016 08:33 AM, clipka wrote:
> The texture refactoring has progressed some more; in addition to the
> features mentioned earlier, testing would be welcome for:
>
> - Finish properties: Nothing should have changed here.
>
> - Smooth meshes and other objects that "fake" a smooth surface: The
> handling of surface normals /has/ changed, and should be more
> well-behaved; most notably I should have gotten rid of the
> interior_texture-on-outside artifacts!
>
> Again, a source code-only version can be found here:
>
>     https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/tree/refactor/texture
>
>
> Am 10.08.2016 um 01:55 schrieb clipka:
>
The latest refactor/texture showing no differences on my non-mesh test 
cases in some spot checking to the previous version.

I also wanted to flesh out the brilliance & radiosity differences story.

Where A-F represents the following POV-Ray versions:

A -> povray 3.7.0 stable

B -> 167ed19. Commit prior to c891131 Fixed two mesh camera bugs and 
other camera flaws.

C -> 3c07635 Where the AA/shift of c891131 got fixed (but isosurface 
offset still there)

D -> 4d52c26 Fixed a bug causing radiosity to ignore refracted 
`no_image` objects.

E -> Previous refactor/texture. povray371Txtr_8738139

F -> Current refactor/texture.

So the rows in each attached image are comparing:

1) A to B
2) B to C
3) C to D
4) D to E
5) E to F
6) A to F

Showing the absolute difference mutiplied by 4x in the right most column.

For Story_Brill_Grtr1_wRad.jpg

1) A to B - The brilliance change of 54b283a.
2) B to C - The camera fixes of c891131.
3) C to D - Additional change some, not all in compensation of (2).
4) D to E - Mostly that refactor/texture code restored brilliance >1.
5) E to F - No change between last and current refactor/texture.
6) A to F - Surprise! With brilliace>1 quite a bit of radiosity difference.

For Story_Brill_Max1_wRad.jpg

1) A to B - Minor radiosity driven differences.
2) B to C - The camera fixes of c891131.
3) C to D - Additional change some, not all in compensation of (2).
4) D to E - No last refactor/texture to base 4d52c26
5) E to F - No change between last and current refactor/texture.
6) A to F - Believe mostly the result of c891131 & something between C & D.

For Story_Brill_Max1_NoRad.jpg

1) A to B - No difference.
2) B to C - Seeing the isosurface issue fixed with 0889275. (Yes affects 
Rad a little)
3) C to D - Seeing the isosurface issue fixed with 0889275.
4) D to E - No difference.
5) E to F - No difference between last and current refactor/text.
6) A to F - No difference.

I think most everything can be ignored except the surprise A-F 
radiosity results where the brilliance>1.0 is having a surprising effect 
on radiosity compared to 3.7.0 stable.

I'm off to try this latest refactor/texture with additional scenes - 
especially some with meshes.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'story_brill_grtr1_wrad.jpg' (167 KB) Download 'story_brill_max1_norad.jpg' (135 KB) Download 'story_brill_max1_wrad.jpg' (141 KB)

Preview of image 'story_brill_grtr1_wrad.jpg'

Preview of image 'story_brill_max1_norad.jpg'

Preview of image 'story_brill_max1_wrad.jpg'

On 09/06/2016 06:33 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>
> I'm off to try this latest refactor/texture with additional scenes -
> especially some with meshes.
>
> Bill P.
>
Ah, looks like something changed in this last release to better align 
the metallic keyword behavior with 3.7.0-stable - good! I'd not before 
picked up this difference.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'storynk0226_brill_max1_norad.jpg' (105 KB)

Preview of image 'storynk0226_brill_max1_norad.jpg'

On 09/06/2016 06:33 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>
> I'm off to try this latest refactor/texture with additional scenes -
> especially some with meshes.
>
> Bill P.
>
>

Found a case where some shadows changed with the last refactor/texture 
and stayed the same with this last version. Experimented quite a bit and 
unable to find a normal or finish option which triggers it though able 
to change the signature in the shadows some.

Files attached. (Differences at 8x absolute value to better see them) 
Maybe this is a case which will let us run down the differences in 
shadow rays & shadow cache numbers...

FYI - I'd argue differences small enough to ignore in this material, but 
does appear to be a change due the texture refactoring.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nk0278__e.pov.txt' (5 KB) Download 'storynk0278_brill_max1_norad.jpg' (229 KB)

Preview of image 'storynk0278_brill_max1_norad.jpg'

On 09/06/2016 06:33 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>
> I'm off to try this latest refactor/texture with additional scenes -
> especially some with meshes.
>
> Bill P.
>
>

To the Good.

Found another material (NK0304) which with the latest refactor/texture 
is now aligned with 3.7.0-stable results where "specular 0.01 roughness 
0.25" coupled with "brilliance 0.85" had been giving slightly different 
results.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2016 06:33 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>
> I'm off to try this latest refactor/texture with additional scenes -
> especially some with meshes.
>
> Bill P.
>
A reminder for others doing texture testing.

The documentation warns turbulence modifiers not wrapped in a warp{} 
blocks might not run in SDL apparent order or even the same order as 
other modifiers over time. I've run down a set of my own texture testing 
differences to this cause.

A source code change after 3.7.0-stable and sometime before (B - 
167ed19) causes 'some' materials I've picked up over time to appear 
differently where turbulence is not specified in a warp {} block.

In other words, code such as:

pigment {
    wood turbulence 0.135 omega 0.65 lambda 3
    color_map {...}
    rotate <0,90,0>
    scale <1,0.2,0.2>
    rotate <0,0.5,10>
}

Needs to be written as something like:

pigment {
    wood
    color_map {...}
    warp { turbulence 0.135 omega 0.65 lambda 3 }
    rotate <0,90,0>
    scale <1,0.2,0.2>
    rotate <0,0.5,10>
}

If one wants such textures to appear exactly the same in 3.7.1 as 3.7.0.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2016 06:33 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>
> I'm off to try this latest refactor/texture with additional scenes -
> especially some with meshes.
>
> Bill P.
>

Attached is a modified case eliminating previously seen differences 
leaving a difference where we have only specular highlights defined for 
the surface. There is some slight difference in the shadows A (3.7.0) 
->B (167ed19) which persists in all later versions.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nk0314__f.pov.txt' (4 KB) Download 'storynk0314_norad.jpg' (124 KB)

Preview of image 'storynk0314_norad.jpg'