 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> On 19/09/2017 17:14, omniverse wrote:
> > Did see this image showing actual police box design and the Doctor Who designs:
> >
> > http://merricks-tardis-build.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html
> >
> > I would guess yours is most like the real thing, judging from that.
>
> Did you find the Blue Box Project?
> http://www.blueboxproject.com/
>
> There are blueprints and links.
Maybe something from that, among all the others. Also a paper cut out version.
That's some dedicated, obsessed people out there, and talented at their craft
too.
I wouldn't have known there were different versions either, and I know now I've
seen more Doctors than I realized. At least 8 to 10. I'd probably have seen more
of that show by now but I don't get the BBC.
Hey Ive, your Tardis project does go back a ways, thanks for the link to that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> ...as promised, here is a nighttime version. As it turns out, it looks
> to my own surprise more like dusk or dawn but I'm ok with that.
>
> -Ive
That's great, but why are the minivan's headlights not lighting up the asphalt
at all? could they be turned more downwards / have a less blended light cone /
or maybe the light coming from the top left off screen is too strong ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 9/20/2017 um 9:40 schrieb Mr:
> That's great, but why are the minivan's headlights not lighting up the asphalt
> at all? could they be turned more downwards / have a less blended light cone /
> or maybe the light coming from the top left off screen is too strong ?
>
>
They are but the effect is too dim to be seen in this image.
While the headlights itself are modeled quite detailed and realistic I
don't think it is possible to get realistic head*lights* without using
IES light profiles, something POV-Ray does not support.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/21/2017 06:15 AM, Ive wrote:
> Am 9/20/2017 um 9:40 schrieb Mr:
>
> They are but the effect is too dim to be seen in this image.
> While the headlights itself are modeled quite detailed and realistic I
> don't think it is possible to get realistic head*lights* without using
> IES light profiles, something POV-Ray does not support.
>
> -Ive
I remember the VW van and bug headlights in the VWs of my youth as being
VERY dim and so thought you'd gotten them about right for the environment!
On the IES profiles. I took a run at some kind of support 5 years or
more back on a mention of them in the newsgroups - prior to which I
didn't know such files existed. Does a profile actually exist for a
1970s VW van headlight? ;-)
Perhaps it was unfortunate choices in light fixture manufactures and IES
profiles, but with the samples I grabbed, I ended frustrated by the
differing standards over time, the seeming lack of full compliance to
any of them and the frequent, probable errors in the data. A task that
started simple per first look, turned into real work with a view to
endless support. I quit. I got to where I was able to render a few
reasonable looking IES profiles via light enclosing, hollow spheres with
image mapped transparency(1).
Today, are the other rendering tools supporting real IES manufacturer
profiles (if so, what does that really mean...(3)) or are they using
some already converted set of spot light like variations for a
particular tool or standard being 'called' IES lights in the tool? I'm
thinking it easier to support the latter sort of 'IES stand-in' in
POV-Ray as that could perhaps be a smallish set of spherical image maps
folks could use in some semi-standard light enclosing set up?
Bill P.
(1) - Passable for most, essentially spreading, IES intensity profiles
such as a light and fixture against a building's siding say. This faking
is not OK for light&fixture profiles which have focusing or additive
areas as one moves away from the light in 3D. Such faking as that needs
more complicated, light associated, 3D pigments/media densities for all
objects and media around the light(s). This too is doable with functions
or DF3s/functions in POV-Ray and it'd now be easier with function based
user_defined {} pigments in 3.8. Though not IES related, I've played
with projected_through no_image-isosurface-fragments as a way to shape
3d scene light intensity in interesting ways not requiring modification
to in scene textures / media. Maybe such a technique could play an IES
roll too...
The IES files contain a smallish number of samples taken around a
certain light source and light fixture which get interpolated for the
resultant, in scene, profile.
To 'accurately' model a light(2) and fixture one must shoot photons from
a light source inside a good representation of the actual light fixture
- perhaps also calibrate/fit to actual IES measured locations for the
fixture. I'd argue POV-Ray can implement the photons method quite well -
if one wants to burn the time and effort for the precise effect.
(2) - As you know, you need too some overall system like lightsys
(spectral rendering?) for the sources and intensities indicated in the
IES file about which you know far, far more than me :-).
(3) - For one, does such implementation grab too the light fixture's
model? Asking because in my very limited bit of playing, I had trouble
with the environment corrupting the result of the IES profiled light due
not having the actual fixture (parts corresponding to
black/blocked-by-the-fixture light of the profile). This was partly me
not being able to easily sort out good sphere enclosed light position
and orientations relative to the fixture given the actual light bulb's
shape was not the shape of my spherical stand-in. All caused me to
wonder whether folks using IES profiles were just after some rough
effect more than any kind of exact one. If so, maybe the format issues
don't matter all that much and sometimes sloppy IES files - so long as
you can parse and interpret them somehow - are OK in practice. Or, maybe
the IES implementation in other tools is much different than anything I
considered?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> On 09/21/2017 06:15 AM, Ive wrote:
> > Am 9/20/2017 um 9:40 schrieb Mr:
> >
> > They are but the effect is too dim to be seen in this image.
> > While the headlights itself are modeled quite detailed and realistic I
> > don't think it is possible to get realistic head*lights* without using
> > IES light profiles, something POV-Ray does not support.
> >
> > -Ive
>
> I remember the VW van and bug headlights in the VWs of my youth as being
> VERY dim and so thought you'd gotten them about right for the environment!
>
> On the IES profiles. I took a run at some kind of support 5 years or
> more back on a mention of them in the newsgroups - prior to which I
> didn't know such files existed. Does a profile actually exist for a
> 1970s VW van headlight? ;-)
>
> Perhaps it was unfortunate choices in light fixture manufactures and IES
> profiles, but with the samples I grabbed, I ended frustrated by the
> differing standards over time, the seeming lack of full compliance to
> any of them and the frequent, probable errors in the data. A task that
> started simple per first look, turned into real work with a view to
> endless support. I quit. I got to where I was able to render a few
> reasonable looking IES profiles via light enclosing, hollow spheres with
> image mapped transparency(1).
>
> Today, are the other rendering tools supporting real IES manufacturer
> profiles (if so, what does that really mean...(3)) or are they using
> some already converted set of spot light like variations for a
> particular tool or standard being 'called' IES lights in the tool? I'm
> thinking it easier to support the latter sort of 'IES stand-in' in
> POV-Ray as that could perhaps be a smallish set of spherical image maps
> folks could use in some semi-standard light enclosing set up?
>
> Bill P.
>
> (1) - Passable for most, essentially spreading, IES intensity profiles
> such as a light and fixture against a building's siding say. This faking
> is not OK for light&fixture profiles which have focusing or additive
> areas as one moves away from the light in 3D. Such faking as that needs
> more complicated, light associated, 3D pigments/media densities for all
> objects and media around the light(s). This too is doable with functions
> or DF3s/functions in POV-Ray and it'd now be easier with function based
> user_defined {} pigments in 3.8. Though not IES related, I've played
> with projected_through no_image-isosurface-fragments as a way to shape
> 3d scene light intensity in interesting ways not requiring modification
> to in scene textures / media. Maybe such a technique could play an IES
> roll too...
>
> The IES files contain a smallish number of samples taken around a
> certain light source and light fixture which get interpolated for the
> resultant, in scene, profile.
>
> To 'accurately' model a light(2) and fixture one must shoot photons from
> a light source inside a good representation of the actual light fixture
> - perhaps also calibrate/fit to actual IES measured locations for the
> fixture. I'd argue POV-Ray can implement the photons method quite well -
> if one wants to burn the time and effort for the precise effect.
>
> (2) - As you know, you need too some overall system like lightsys
> (spectral rendering?) for the sources and intensities indicated in the
> IES file about which you know far, far more than me :-).
>
> (3) - For one, does such implementation grab too the light fixture's
> model? Asking because in my very limited bit of playing, I had trouble
> with the environment corrupting the result of the IES profiled light due
> not having the actual fixture (parts corresponding to
> black/blocked-by-the-fixture light of the profile). This was partly me
> not being able to easily sort out good sphere enclosed light position
> and orientations relative to the fixture given the actual light bulb's
> shape was not the shape of my spherical stand-in. All caused me to
> wonder whether folks using IES profiles were just after some rough
> effect more than any kind of exact one. If so, maybe the format issues
> don't matter all that much and sometimes sloppy IES files - so long as
> you can parse and interpret them somehow - are OK in practice. Or, maybe
> the IES implementation in other tools is much different than anything I
> considered?
Form what I heard spectral rendering would do much for some of pov features
(iridescence, caustics) would it improve such scenes as well?
I for one would use IES files or any replacement feature just as some use HDRI,
so more cosmetics, with short setup time because of huge free libraries to use.
and still good result...
This means the feature or its replacement needs to keep the rendertime as slow
as it currently is and not make it slower. That reserve aside, any improvement
in these fields would be huge for POV
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 9/19/2017 um 8:44 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> >
> > Night time in a city. I find the sky to be correct especially if there
> > is some mist.
>
> POV-Ray's scattering media with its Mie haze and Mie murky types to
> create all kinds of atmospheric effects with ease is one of the features
> that I miss in any other rendering engine I have used so far.
>
I haven't played around much with scattering media's various types (usually
using just type 1.) But I've noticed an additional haze effect in real life that
can't(?) be easiily reproduced, if at all: In a rain-type misty atmosphere (not
actual raindrops, but *heavy* mist), distant light sources like streetlights
look slightly *blurred.* I don't know what the physical reason for this is
(probably a complex phenomenon involving multitudes of different IORs of the
tiny misty 'drops'), but its an effect that would add a bit more realism to a
hazy scene. I have no idea if any other raytracing renderer can do this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.09.2017 um 17:19 schrieb Kenneth:
> I haven't played around much with scattering media's various types (usually
> using just type 1.) But I've noticed an additional haze effect in real life that
> can't(?) be easiily reproduced, if at all: In a rain-type misty atmosphere (not
> actual raindrops, but *heavy* mist), distant light sources like streetlights
> look slightly *blurred.* I don't know what the physical reason for this is
> (probably a complex phenomenon involving multitudes of different IORs of the
> tiny misty 'drops'), but its an effect that would add a bit more realism to a
> hazy scene. I have no idea if any other raytracing renderer can do this.
That effect is caused by anisotropic scattering, with rays mostly
scattered in a direction close to the original direction.
And yes, POV-Ray should be able to do it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-9-2017 18:36, clipka wrote:
> Am 22.09.2017 um 17:19 schrieb Kenneth:
>
>> I haven't played around much with scattering media's various types (usually
>> using just type 1.) But I've noticed an additional haze effect in real life that
>> can't(?) be easiily reproduced, if at all: In a rain-type misty atmosphere (not
>> actual raindrops, but *heavy* mist), distant light sources like streetlights
>> look slightly *blurred.* I don't know what the physical reason for this is
>> (probably a complex phenomenon involving multitudes of different IORs of the
>> tiny misty 'drops'), but its an effect that would add a bit more realism to a
>> hazy scene. I have no idea if any other raytracing renderer can do this.
>
> That effect is caused by anisotropic scattering, with rays mostly
> scattered in a direction close to the original direction.
>
> And yes, POV-Ray should be able to do it.
>
"should be able" meaning that it cannot do that yet, I suppose?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.09.2017 um 08:44 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> I haven't played around much with scattering media's various types
>>> (usually
>>> using just type 1.) But I've noticed an additional haze effect in
>>> real life that
>>> can't(?) be easiily reproduced, if at all: In a rain-type misty
>>> atmosphere (not
>>> actual raindrops, but *heavy* mist), distant light sources like
>>> streetlights
>>> look slightly *blurred.* I don't know what the physical reason for
>>> this is
>>> (probably a complex phenomenon involving multitudes of different IORs
>>> of the
>>> tiny misty 'drops'), but its an effect that would add a bit more
>>> realism to a
>>> hazy scene. I have no idea if any other raytracing renderer can do this.
>>
>> That effect is caused by anisotropic scattering, with rays mostly
>> scattered in a direction close to the original direction.
>>
>> And yes, POV-Ray should be able to do it.
>
> "should be able" meaning that it cannot do that yet, I suppose?
No, more like meaning that I've never tested it myself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2017 10:58, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.09.2017 um 08:44 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>>>> I haven't played around much with scattering media's various types
>>>> (usually
>>>> using just type 1.) But I've noticed an additional haze effect in
>>>> real life that
>>>> can't(?) be easiily reproduced, if at all: In a rain-type misty
>>>> atmosphere (not
>>>> actual raindrops, but *heavy* mist), distant light sources like
>>>> streetlights
>>>> look slightly *blurred.* I don't know what the physical reason for
>>>> this is
>>>> (probably a complex phenomenon involving multitudes of different IORs
>>>> of the
>>>> tiny misty 'drops'), but its an effect that would add a bit more
>>>> realism to a
>>>> hazy scene. I have no idea if any other raytracing renderer can do this.
>>>
>>> That effect is caused by anisotropic scattering, with rays mostly
>>> scattered in a direction close to the original direction.
>>>
>>> And yes, POV-Ray should be able to do it.
>>
>> "should be able" meaning that it cannot do that yet, I suppose?
>
> No, more like meaning that I've never tested it myself.
>
Aha! That is an interesting notion... :-) So mie haze or mie murky
should do the trick. Something to look into... one day.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
