On 26.07.2017 21:54, omniverse wrote:
> "omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
>> I believe what's going on is your image map is too dark and there's no s
pecular
>> highlight or phong* in your outer finish statement.
>> I'm not home to test that theory out.
> 
> * edited. note to self: don't talk to text these povray messages by smart
 phone!
> 
> 
You mean, I should use a different angle for the light source?

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

On 26.07.2017 15:04, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.07.2017 um 17:46 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
>> On 26.07.2017 10:47, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 26.07.2017 um 16:44 schrieb Stephen:
>>>
>>>> Whoosh! That went completely over my head. Not only have I never heard

>>>> of the movie. The image looked like a neon tube mounted in an old
>>>> fashioned lampshade.
>>>
>>> Given the state-of-the-art special effects back then, maybe it /was/ a
>>> neon tube mounted in an old fashioned lampshade after all ;)
>>>
>> Coming back into the cinemas. Alas they did not add the latest effects
>> and spaceship designs to that great movie. I've seen the original movie.

>> Great movie.
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> Still not getting any bumps, feeling very frustrated now. I want to keep

>> my texture image file, not replacing it with a single color.
> 
> At the moment, all seems to point at the pigment definition as the
> culprit, as that's the only relevant thing we've always changed. You
> should at least /try/ it with a plain pigment, to either confirm or
> refute this theory.
> 
> If you can confirm it, we know that's what we have to examine further;
> in that case you'll probably want to post the image map at last, so that
> we can see what might be so special about it.
> 
> Otherwise we can be sure that it's a red herring, and that we have to
> dig someplace else.
> 
Nope. Here's a one-color pigment. :-(

texture source code:
------------------

#declare MyOuterBalloonTexture = texture
{
 pigment
 {
  color rgb < 0.2, 0.9, 0.0 >
/*  image_map
  {
   png "H:\My Documents\My Pictures\POV-Ray\Space - Launcher - Balloon -
Type 001 - Moon Runnings - Balloon Texture.png"
   gamma 1
   map_type 0
   interpolate 2
   once
  }
  translate -0.5
  rotate < 90.0, 0.0, 0.0 >
  scale MyRadius*2   */
 }
 normal
 {
  gradient y
  normal_map
  {
   [ 0.175 PositiveBump ]
   [ 0.175 NegativeBump ]
  }
  scale < 1.0, 1.5*MyRadius, 1.0 >
 }
// finish { MyOuterBalloonFinish }
}


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png' (70 KB)

Preview of image 'space - launcher - balloon - type 001 - moon runnings.png'

On 26.07.2017 12:37, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> 
>> Whoosh! That went completely over my head. Not only have I never heard
>> of the movie. The image looked like a neon tube mounted in an old
>> fashioned lampshade.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_American_Hero
> 
> Pretty sure it was lights on the bottom of a hot air balloon, which is wh
y this
> reminds me so much of it.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Q3orQhEcA
> 
> Maybe Sven needs to add some light sources to the scene...   :D
> 
But I have a light source there. You mean, I should add more light sources?


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowskiname> wrote:
> On 26.07.2017 12:37, Bald Eagle wrote:
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >
> >> Whoosh! That went completely over my head. Not only have I never heard
> >> of the movie. The image looked like a neon tube mounted in an old
> >> fashioned lampshade.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_American_Hero
> >
> > Pretty sure it was lights on the bottom of a hot air balloon, which is wh
> y this
> > reminds me so much of it.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Q3orQhEcA
> >
> > Maybe Sven needs to add some light sources to the scene...   :D
> >
> But I have a light source there. You mean, I should add more light sources?

":D" big grin face, so I'm sure Bald Eagle was jesting, at least mostly I'm
guessing.

Having seen your green balloon using that same bump_map... something is
obviously wrong. I think we have all had trouble understanding why it only
happens for you.

Is that version of POV-Ray official or custom?

Probably what we all need to know is at this point is if a test of a simple
normal statement on a simple object is okay or not.

Not knowing what else you've done to check what's going on, maybe forget about
the balloon for now and render this and you should see a bumpy ball (camera NOT
needed! default camera used):

#version 3.7;

global_settings {
 assumed_gamma 1
  }
light_source {
  <-20, 40, -20>
  color rgb <1,1,1>
}

sphere {0,1
 texture {
  pigment{ color rgb <1,1,1> }
  normal { bumps bump_size 1 }
  finish { specular 0.1 }
 scale 0.2
}
translate <0,0,3>
}

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowskiname> wrote:
> On 26.07.2017 21:54, omniverse wrote:
> > "omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> >> I believe what's going on is your image map is too dark and there's no
> >> specular highlight or phong highlight in your outer finish statement.
> >
> You mean, I should use a different angle for the light source?

No, sorry, just that there's nothing at all in your outer finish statement to
affect lighting and shadowing.


#declare MyOuterBalloonFinish = finish
{
// reflection   0.00
 crand        0.10
}

#declare MyInnerBalloonFinish = finish
{
 brilliance   1.50
 phong albedo 0.05
 metallic     0.00
 ambient      0.00
 emission     0.00
 reflection   0.50
}


As you can see there, the inner finish does have highlighting via phong but it's
very little and can't be seen from outside (without transparency for outside).

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> there's nothing at all in your outer finish statement to
> affect lighting and shadowing.
>
>
> #declare MyOuterBalloonFinish = finish
> {
> // reflection   0.00
>  crand        0.10
> }

Sorry again. I wasn't smart there. Of course, default 'diffuse' finish should
still show shadowing when a normal statement is used, regardless of a finish
statement even existing or not.

Only way it wouldn't, that I can think of, is if scale is messing with the
normal. Or bump_size itself is affected in a bad way somehow.

Beyond that, I'm back to wondering about the program. I checked versions 3.7.0
and 3.7.1.rc1 and image_map doesn't remove a surface normal in my testing for
that. All okay here, anyhow.

Here we are approaching 60 messages in this thread, must be an answer to the
mystery... thing is, no one else has had the same thing happen yet, except for
finding trouble with low contrast, dark image/bump maps.

And now the green balloon render lacking bumpiness only makes the mystery more
so one.

Never give up hope, but this is a tricky thing for whatever reason.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

On 26-7-2017 17:42, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> On 26.07.2017 07:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 26-7-2017 13:20, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 26-7-2017 2:01, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>> Latest Scene Code, Latest Bump, Latest Result
>>>> (still no bumps)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't change anything to your code and used the bump map provided,
>>> and this is what I get: bumps *are* visible!
>>>
>>
>> Not entirely true ;-)
>>
>> I added:
>>
>> global_settings {
>>    assumed_gamma 1.0
>> }
>>
>> which was demanded by your kolors.inc (and for obvious reasons when
>> using version 3.7) and I provided a uniform red colour texture for the
>> balloon (as an image_map).
>>
> I am not understanding this. I added the assumed gamma (but kept the
> texture as it is), and still nothing of the bump shows! I really want to
> use an images as texture. Please try my scene with the assumed gama, and
> post the resulting image.
> 
> I am attaching the scene code, the bump image, and the resulting scene
> image.
> 

Well, I don't know what goes wrong with your render, but my render of 
your code is ok.

Please note that assumed_gamma should be declared /before/ the 
kolors.inc include or you while get an error message. Also note that you 
have declared assumed_gamma twice inside the global_settings. However, 
that is not the problem.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sl_balloon2.png' (88 KB)

Preview of image 'sl_balloon2.png'

On 7/27/2017 7:30 AM, omniverse wrote:
> Here we are approaching 60 messages in this thread, must be an answer to the
> mystery... thing is, no one else has had the same thing happen yet, except for
> finding trouble with low contrast, dark image/bump maps.

Do you think that it is possible that there is a mix up with duplicate 
image files being referenced?
Or finding the wrong file in a long Library_Path?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 7/27/2017 7:30 AM, omniverse wrote:
> > Here we are approaching 60 messages in this thread, must be an answer to the
> > mystery... thing is, no one else has had the same thing happen yet, except for
> > finding trouble with low contrast, dark image/bump maps.
>
> Do you think that it is possible that there is a mix up with duplicate
> image files being referenced?
> Or finding the wrong file in a long Library_Path?

Not very likely I suppose.
Just checked using image and bump files located in a parent-sub-sub folder on a
another partition and was okay with forward slashes and backslashes, even though
the latter causes P-R to spit out error messages.

Oh, and this must be message number 60.  ;)

Await hearing which POV-Ray version, or if custom compiled. I could have missed
that info so maybe I will scan over this thread again in the meantime.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.07.2017 um 05:24 schrieb Sven Littkowski:

>> At the moment, all seems to point at the pigment definition as the
>> culprit, as that's the only relevant thing we've always changed. You
>> should at least /try/ it with a plain pigment, to either confirm or
>> refute this theory.
>>
>> If you can confirm it, we know that's what we have to examine further;
>> in that case you'll probably want to post the image map at last, so that
>> we can see what might be so special about it.
>>
>> Otherwise we can be sure that it's a red herring, and that we have to
>> dig someplace else.
>>
> Nope. Here's a one-color pigment. :-(

Okay, now this leaves surprisingly few possible explanations. I can only
come up with the following:

- You might be using a rare and buggy version of POV-Ray.

To check this, I recommend you post the exact POV-Ray version number
(and let us know which operating system you're using).

- You might be using a different scene file and/or bump map image file
than those you posted.

- There might be a relevant line break introduced in your post of the
scene file that we've been overlooking.

To check these two, I recommend you temporarily rename your scene and
auxiliary files (image file and bump map), then try to re-create the
scene from your own postings and render it. You'll get parse errors,
make sure to fix only those actually reported.

- You might be using low-quality settings (`+q7` or lower).

To check this, I recommend you post the message output of the render,
and/or run the render with `+giFOO.INI` and post the generated FOO.INI here.

Post a reply to this message