 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2014 16:20, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Oh gosh, yes, it is a shadow vanishing trick indeed!
>
> I attach the material file of the building. Note that a few elements
> have been subjected to a proximity pattern. I shall test if /those/
> render differently; if so, you will get them too but I think that will
> not be necessary.
Well, I can now say definitively that the culprits are the elements that
have gone through the proximity pattern mill. However, the strange thing
is that the shadow of the window sill on the first floor also vanishes
although no element with a proximity pattern is present there.
So the problem might be slightly different from what you were fearing.
Info:
- I used Edouard Poor's Proximity Pattern macro.
- You may have them one way or another, but I attach Edouard's files, as
I use them, to be sure.
- The arcs, columns, and the fountain are processed.
- I attach de .df3 and .prox files of these elements.
I think you have everything necessary to test. If not, yell.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'arcs.df3.dat' (82 KB)
Download 'windows-1252' (1 KB)
Download 'columns.df3.dat' (83 KB)
Download 'windows-1252' (1 KB)
Download 'fountain.df3.dat' (79 KB)
Download 'windows-1252' (1 KB)
Download 'windows-1252' (15 KB)
Download 'windows-1252' (13 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2014 16:46, FractRacer wrote:
> Well done, you have made some very good jobs actually. I want also to
> thank and congratulate you for your reeds_in_the_winds files, very
> useful and realistic.
Thank you indeed. The pleasure is mine :-)
As far as the reeds are concerned, I guess there are possibilities for
improvement. This is about what I can do, others may come up with some
smart solutions.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.09.2014 16:44, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 23-9-2014 16:20, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Oh gosh, yes, it is a shadow vanishing trick indeed!
>>
>> I attach the material file of the building. Note that a few elements
>> have been subjected to a proximity pattern. I shall test if /those/
>> render differently; if so, you will get them too but I think that will
>> not be necessary.
>
> Well, I can now say definitively that the culprits are the elements that
> have gone through the proximity pattern mill. However, the strange thing
> is that the shadow of the window sill on the first floor also vanishes
> although no element with a proximity pattern is present there.
Can you help me with identifying those textures?
> So the problem might be slightly different from what you were fearing.
Well, what /was/ I "fearing" then? ;-)
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
