"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

On 7/27/2017 8:41 AM, omniverse wrote:
> 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.

It has happened to me on occasion.

> 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.  ;)

A long way off the record.
642 at the last count, in OT.

http://news.povray.org/povray.off-topic/thread/%3C5797bc1b%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=416746&toff=50


>
> 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.
>

Has anyone collect Sven's code? I don't fancy going through the thread 
to piece it all together. And I've not been following it closely.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27-7-2017 11:34, Stephen wrote:

> Has anyone collect Sven's code? I don't fancy going through the thread 
> to piece it all together. And I've not been following it closely.
> 

This is the latest, with my amendments. See also the attached images I used.



-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'balloon bumpmap.png' (201 KB) Download 'balloon texture.png' (3 KB) Download 'sl_balloon2.pov.txt' (8 KB)

Preview of image 'balloon bumpmap.png'

Preview of image 'balloon texture.png'

"omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowskiname> wrote:
> > On 26.07.2017 12:37, Bald Eagle wrote:

> > > 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.

The light sources I was suggesting were the lights at the bottom of the balloon
- in the video.  Because spaceships only ever visit Earthlings at night in
isolated, unpopulated areas.
And it makes for dramatic lighting.

I think that for clarity and accuracy, it might be advisable to package all of
the files into a ZIP and post it in a binary thread so that everybody has all of
the same pieces to analyze.  Unzip to a subdirectory, and then there shouldn't
be any question of what files are being used to generate the render.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/27/2017 12:19 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-7-2017 11:34, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Has anyone collect Sven's code? I don't fancy going through the thread
>> to piece it all together. And I've not been following it closely.
>>
>
> This is the latest, with my amendments. See also the attached images I
> used.
>
>
>
Thanks Thomas.
The results were as expected. The shadows showing.

But is this expected? It is the top of the balloon.
[Drat! I can't put them inline.]

Using Sven's original code. I imported it into Bishop3D correcting the 
errors one by one. Using the image maps you supplied. The second image 
is directly from Sven's code.


What concerns me is:
   image_map { png "H:\My Documents\My Pictures\POV-Ray\Space - Launcher
- Balloon - Type 001 - Moon Runnings - Balloon Texture.png" }

Are those spaces and dashes part of the file name?




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'import02_0000.png' (184 KB) Download 'import03_00000.png' (137 KB)

Preview of image 'import02_0000.png'

Preview of image 'import03_00000.png'

On 7/27/2017 12:47 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> The light sources I was suggesting were the lights at the bottom of the balloon
> - in the video.  Because spaceships only ever visit Earthlings at night in
> isolated, unpopulated areas.
> And it makes for dramatic lighting.

How very true. :)

Did I ever tell you about the time I stopped off in Roswell for lunch? I 
regretted it, I can tell you.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message