|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2014 19:54, clipka wrote:
> Can you help me with identifying those textures?
Yes of course.
>
>
>> So the problem might be slightly different from what you were fearing.
>
> Well, what /was/ I "fearing" then? ;-)
Good point indeed :-)
>
> I have no doubt that the Prox Pattern macros are perfectly fine. I
> presume that they just happen to make use of a language construct that's
> broken, which may also be used in (and therefore affect) other materials.
>
> Say, do the vanished non-proxed objects perchance also make use of a
> texture_map?
>
I need to plunge into this and see how the textures are built and are
affected. I'll be back.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2014 19:54, clipka wrote:
> I have no doubt that the Prox Pattern macros are perfectly fine. I
> presume that they just happen to make use of a language construct that's
> broken, which may also be used in (and therefore affect) other materials.
>
> Say, do the vanished non-proxed objects perchance also make use of a
> texture_map?
>
Right. This is what I found:
- The proximity pattern textures have the following build-up with
pigment_pattern and a texture_map:
texture {
pigment_pattern {
average
pigment_map {
#if( proximity_pattern_strength != 0 )
[ proximity_pattern_strength*3 df3_pattern scale 1/texture_scale]
#end
#if( slope_pattern_strength != 0 )
[ slope_pattern_strength*0.6 slope { y altitude <0,1,0> }
color_map { [0 rgb 1] [1 rgb 0] } scale 140 * 1/texture_scale ]
#end
#if( noise_pattern_strength != 0 )
[ noise_pattern_strength *0.4 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1
rgb 1] } scale 4 * noise_scale ]
[ noise_pattern_strength *0.3 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1
rgb 1] } scale 1 * noise_scale]
[ noise_pattern_strength *0.2 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1
rgb 1] } scale 0.33 * noise_scale ]
[ noise_pattern_strength *0.1 bozo color_map { [0 rgb 0] [1
rgb 1] } scale 0.1 * noise_scale ]
#end
}
}
texture_map { map }
scale texture_scale
}
- Consequently, in my image, the fountain, the columns, the arcs, and
the combined ridges, window sills, window arcs, are missing (part of)
their shadows.
- As far as I can tell, all other elements have rendered correctly.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2014 10:22, Stephen wrote:
> I like this one very much.
>
I do too. Especially the subtle graininess left by the stochastic
antialiasing is something I appreciate.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A pointillist version ;-)
I added a tiny transparency to the image_maps involved in the proximity
patterns and that proved to be a good workaround. Thanks Christoph.
Tomorrow I shall render a better final version.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'silentium.png' (1064 KB)
Preview of image 'silentium.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/09/14 15:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> A pointillist version ;-)
>
> I added a tiny transparency to the image_maps involved in the proximity
> patterns and that proved to be a good workaround. Thanks Christoph.
>
> Tomorrow I shall render a better final version.
>
> Thomas
>
This I really like.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/09/2014 16:01, Doctor John wrote:
> On 24/09/14 15:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> A pointillist version ;-)
>>
>> I added a tiny transparency to the image_maps involved in the proximity
>> patterns and that proved to be a good workaround. Thanks Christoph.
>>
>> Tomorrow I shall render a better final version.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
> This I really like.
>
The graininess adds to the atmosphere.
@Clipka would it be feasible to add a feature to UberPov so that it
takes a snapshot at different stages to see the progress of the render?
It is just a thought as an animation of the building of the picture
might be interesting to see.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.09.2014 17:34, schrieb Stephen:
> @Clipka would it be feasible to add a feature to UberPov so that it
> takes a snapshot at different stages to see the progress of the render?
> It is just a thought as an animation of the building of the picture
> might be interesting to see.
Such a feature is on my to-do list (has always been, actually), but I'm
waiting for some other changes to happen in POV-Ray proper that will
make it a whole lot easier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/09/2014 16:49, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.09.2014 17:34, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> @Clipka would it be feasible to add a feature to UberPov so that it
>> takes a snapshot at different stages to see the progress of the render?
>> It is just a thought as an animation of the building of the picture
>> might be interesting to see.
>
> Such a feature is on my to-do list (has always been, actually), but I'm
> waiting for some other changes to happen in POV-Ray proper that will
> make it a whole lot easier.
>
Excellent!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.09.2014 18:03, schrieb Stephen:
> On 24/09/2014 16:49, clipka wrote:
>> Am 24.09.2014 17:34, schrieb Stephen:
>>
>>> @Clipka would it be feasible to add a feature to UberPov so that it
>>> takes a snapshot at different stages to see the progress of the render?
>>> It is just a thought as an animation of the building of the picture
>>> might be interesting to see.
>>
>> Such a feature is on my to-do list (has always been, actually), but I'm
>> waiting for some other changes to happen in POV-Ray proper that will
>> make it a whole lot easier.
>
> Excellent!
Did I ever mention that whatever features MCPov has (*) is also on the
to-do list for UberPOV? ;-)
(* uh, wait... MCPov is based on MegaPOV, isn't it? Well, I won't be
able to add all /that/ to UberPOV... not in the one-man show UberPOV
currently is.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/09/2014 17:56, clipka wrote:
> Did I ever mention that whatever features MCPov has (*) is also on the
> to-do list for UberPOV? ;-)
>
No.
> (* uh, wait... MCPov is based on MegaPOV, isn't it? Well, I won't be
> able to add all /that/ to UberPOV... not in the one-man show UberPOV
> currently is.)
Do we change the name to UnterPov? ;-)
Or UnterMcPov Hoots!
I've never really used these unofficial versions as I need a modeller.
And neither Moray nor Bishop3D supported them. You are making be
re-evaluate that. Especially considering the way Blender is being developed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |