|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.08.2017 um 22:25 schrieb Kenneth:
> I take the "true geometric surface normal" to mean the unalterted,
> un-interpolated *single* normal on the face of the flat triangle. Is that
> correct?
Yes.
> Also: It is becoming clearer to me as to why SSLT works better on an object with
> finer-and-finer triangle subdivisions (and perhaps not so well with large flat
> 'mathematical' slabs like a box object?)
The results are actually quite accurate for "large flat 'mathematical'
slabs", if that's the shape you intend to model. The problem isn't the
presence of edges /per se/ -- the problem is the presence of edges in
places where you want to pretend that there are none.
> The smaller triangles-- curving away at
> slightly different angles-- cause the (many) incoming rays (and subsequent
> subsurface 'volume gathering') to be averaged together in a smoother way, with
> the artifacts contributing less to the 'larger' average, or being swamped by it.
> This is my layman's understanding, anyway ;-) Please correct me if I'm mistaken
> or hopelessly wrong. If I'm at least somewhat correct, then POV-Ray's in-built
> documentation doesn't actually mention the need for finer triangle-mesh
> subdivisions, to get a smoother look. Perhaps it should, in light of Flyer X's
> results.
The SSLT feature is still considered highly experimental, and so are its
docs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> The results are actually quite accurate for "large flat 'mathematical'
> slabs", if that's the shape you intend to model. The problem isn't the
> presence of edges /per se/ -- the problem is the presence of edges in
> places where you want to pretend that there are none.
>
Ah yes, I see now. Thanks.
From reading lots of newgroup comments over the years, I had come to the
(mistaken) impression that SSLT actually *worked* better on complex, CURVED
objects-- meaning, an object with LOTS of small triangles and their attendent
interpolated normals. (Such objects do show a nicer, more complex 'look' from
the SSLT effect-- like the ears on the Stanford Bunny.) And conversely, that
more-or-less 'flat-surfaced' featureless objects were to be avoided. But I
understand more clearly now that SSLT *works* equally well on simpler shapes--
like a superellipsoid 'bar of soap', for example. It's just that the final
effect isn't as visually complex (leading me to the mistaken conclusion that it
didn't work well on such shapes.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> >
> > The results are actually quite accurate for "large flat 'mathematical'
> > slabs", if that's the shape you intend to model. The problem isn't the
> > presence of edges /per se/ -- the problem is the presence of edges in
> > places where you want to pretend that there are none.
> >
>
> Ah yes, I see now. Thanks.
>
> From reading lots of newgroup comments over the years, I had come to the
> (mistaken) impression that SSLT actually *worked* better on complex, CURVED
> objects-- meaning, an object with LOTS of small triangles and their attendent
> interpolated normals. (Such objects do show a nicer, more complex 'look' from
> the SSLT effect-- like the ears on the Stanford Bunny.) And conversely, that
> more-or-less 'flat-surfaced' featureless objects were to be avoided. But I
> understand more clearly now that SSLT *works* equally well on simpler shapes--
> like a superellipsoid 'bar of soap', for example. It's just that the final
> effect isn't as visually complex (leading me to the mistaken conclusion that it
> didn't work well on such shapes.)
Indeed, what we are all saying about SSLT, is that it's actually *too* accurate
and looks (too?) great !... :-) We are not used to that behaviour from other
renderers especially with the smoothed average normal cheat enabled.
I am hoping a normal overhaul will also bring many other goodies to POV (such as
tangeant space (/parallax) normal mapping if we don't forget :-P )
meanwhile, I would love to have a fast biased cheated sstl simulated effect
shipped along under the subsurface/translucency command with a keyword similar
to the (fake photonless) caustics. A result similar to ST Benge fastprox macro
would be enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|