Been bumming around this news group for the past year or so and
experimenting with POV / Moray on and off again (more so on again
recently).  Attached are two studies that I put myself through in order
to try and see the relationship between various aspects of the program.
These are sort of "End of chapter summaries".  Got a couple of things in
the pipeline that are due to be finished is a week or so.......actual
scenes, not just spheres and boxes.

These are all done in POVRay 3.1.

I am somewhat old school, and I am actually using POV 3.1 ported to OS/2
to do a lot of the experimental learning work.  Most of the final stuff
is done with 3.1 for Windows on a Win2000 machine.

--
Bruce Johnson
email: lot### [at] coxnet

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'post_1.jpg' (20 KB) Download 'post_2.jpg' (29 KB)

Preview of image 'post_1.jpg'

Preview of image 'post_2.jpg'

Bruce Johnson <lot### [at] coxnet> wrote in news:3D5F9F37.8651ED95@cox.net

Well not bad, since this scene is simple - how about some effects like area 
light, photons, maybe radiosity, to show power of POV ?

and image is IMHO to strongly compressed

-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256com> wrote:

> Well not bad, since this scene is simple - how about some effects like area 
> light, photons, maybe radiosity, to show power of POV ?

Since he is using 3.1, he doesn't have photons and the radiosity is much 
worse. And I don't see why area lights, radiosity, or photons would have 
any place in a shape demo scene.

I would suggest switching to POV 3.5 and making the text labels thinner 
back to front to make them easier to read. A more complex shape would 
make a better mesh demo, and there are plenty of other primitives to 
play with. You could make several dozen examples of isosurfaces though...


> and image is IMHO to strongly compressed

It is fine just for a preview of the scenes. This isn't an IRTC entry...

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg 

>> Well not bad, since this scene is simple - how about some effects
>> like area light, photons, maybe radiosity, to show power of POV ?
> Since he is using 3.1, he doesn't have photons and the radiosity is
> much worse. 

I was alsow as YOu suggesting switching to 3.5

> And I don't see why area lights, radiosity, or photons
> would have any place in a shape demo scene.
area_light - soft shadows
photons - reflections from few of this shapes
I write _maybe_ radiosity because imho it's effect will not be nottacible 
(unles i.e. changing scene to indor
 
> It is fine just for a preview of the scenes. This isn't an IRTC
> entry... 

here I ofcourse agree

-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256com> wrote:

> > Since he is using 3.1, he doesn't have photons and the radiosity is
> > much worse. 
> 
> I was alsow as YOu suggesting switching to 3.5

I didn't see that in your message.


> > And I don't see why area lights, radiosity, or photons
> > would have any place in a shape demo scene.
> area_light - soft shadows

And slower rendering, with no benefit to the demonstration of the shapes 
themselves.


> photons - reflections from few of this shapes

But still no help at displaying the shapes. These are "shape samplers".


> I write _maybe_ radiosity because imho it's effect will not be nottacible 
> (unles i.e. changing scene to indor

The improved lighting radiosity gives would make the shapes easier to 
see, but would slow things down, and for a scene this simple a few 
lighting tricks would work better.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Bare in mind that when these were done, POV 3.5 was still a beta
test......these were only mean to be a sampler of all the shapes in the first
chapter of the POV tutorial.  I did them over 8 months ago.   Only now getting
into textures......advanced features are still to come down the road.  Want to
learn more about Macros and textures at this point.

But regardless I appreciate all the input.  Rest assured I have moved on a bit
from these samples......will post some more in the near future.

Christopher James Huff wrote:

> In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
>  "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256com> wrote:
>
> > > Since he is using 3.1, he doesn't have photons and the radiosity is
> > > much worse.
> >
> > I was alsow as YOu suggesting switching to 3.5
>
> I didn't see that in your message.
>
> > > And I don't see why area lights, radiosity, or photons
> > > would have any place in a shape demo scene.
> > area_light - soft shadows
>
> And slower rendering, with no benefit to the demonstration of the shapes
> themselves.
>
> > photons - reflections from few of this shapes
>
> But still no help at displaying the shapes. These are "shape samplers".
>
> > I write _maybe_ radiosity because imho it's effect will not be nottacible
> > (unles i.e. changing scene to indor
>
> The improved lighting radiosity gives would make the shapes easier to
> see, but would slow things down, and for a scene this simple a few
> lighting tricks would work better.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
> POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message