I was working on a gem cuts module for the Object Collection when 
Hurricane Irma struck.  The module was essentially finished, but 
required testing and documentation.

Alas, I have made very little progress in the past 3 months, and while I 
am in Florida, I prioritized other things.  Like finishing an online 
backup (also interrupted by Irma) and catching up on YouTube.  Rather 
than upload a partially tested module with incomplete documentation, or 
trying to rush everything to completion in the short time I have (a sure 
recipe for a broken module), I'll just leave this sneak preview.

It occurred to me there may be a non-zero probability of being able to 
upload the module via my phone.  I'll try that later; however, even if I 
succeed, I won't be able to post a notice to the newsgroups until I get 
home Internet back.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gemcuts.jpg' (99 KB)

Preview of image 'gemcuts.jpg'

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I was working on a gem cuts module for the Object Collection when
> Hurricane Irma struck.  The module was essentially finished, but
> required testing and documentation.
>
> Alas, I have made very little progress in the past 3 months, and while I
> am in Florida, I prioritized other things.  Like finishing an online
> backup (also interrupted by Irma) and catching up on YouTube.  Rather
> than upload a partially tested module with incomplete documentation, or
> trying to rush everything to completion in the short time I have (a sure
> recipe for a broken module), I'll just leave this sneak preview.
>
> It occurred to me there may be a non-zero probability of being able to
> upload the module via my phone.  I'll try that later; however, even if I
> succeed, I won't be able to post a notice to the newsgroups until I get
> home Internet back.

Courage for the hacking... If you do manage to commit (to GIT?) from an android
phone, I would be interested to know how.

The image is promissing, but too bright:
is gamma correct?
are albedo and conserve_energy used?
are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?
with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.

Post a reply to this message

> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> I was working on a gem cuts module for the Object Collection when
>> Hurricane Irma struck.  The module was essentially finished, but
>> required testing and documentation.
>>
>> Alas, I have made very little progress in the past 3 months, and while I
>> am in Florida, I prioritized other things.  Like finishing an online
>> backup (also interrupted by Irma) and catching up on YouTube.  Rather
>> than upload a partially tested module with incomplete documentation, or
>> trying to rush everything to completion in the short time I have (a sure
>> recipe for a broken module), I'll just leave this sneak preview.
>>
>> It occurred to me there may be a non-zero probability of being able to
>> upload the module via my phone.  I'll try that later; however, even if I
>> succeed, I won't be able to post a notice to the newsgroups until I get
>> home Internet back.
> 
> Courage for the hacking... If you do manage to commit (to GIT?) from an android
> phone, I would be interested to know how.
> 
> The image is promissing, but too bright:
> is gamma correct?
> are albedo and conserve_energy used?
> are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?
> with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.
> 

Maybe using textures from metals.inc. Those have insane ambient values. 
Should change them to ambient 0.

Post a reply to this message

Once again, using someone else's computer; I hope this goes through.

"Mr" <mauriceraybaud [at] hotmail dot fr>> wrote:
> Courage for the hacking... If you do manage to commit (to GIT?) from an android
> phone, I would be interested to know how.

If I commit, it will be through the Object Collection uploader. I'll let Le
Forgeron worry about GitHub.

> The image is promissing, but too bright:
> is gamma correct?
> are albedo and conserve_energy used?
> are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?

My gamma is always 1.0, and I always use conserve_energy.

I did not albedo, because I want the example to run in pre-3.7 scenes. Both
gemstones use an entirely transparent pigment, so the diffuse value is
irrelevant. For the specular value, I precalculated a base value using the
albedo formula in parstxtr.cpp, and then reduced it according to a formula I
developed to /estimate/ the Fresnel effect.

> with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.

I will consider lowering the lighting and using a darker wood for the table. I

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > The image is promissing, but too bright:
> > is gamma correct?
> > are albedo and conserve_energy used?
> > are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?
> > with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.
>
> Maybe using textures from metals.inc. Those have insane ambient values.
> Should change them to ambient 0.

Alain, you know me better than that!

I used very low ambient and diffuse values.  I didn't use zero, because I'm not
using blurred reflection.  (My focus for this module is the modeling, not the
textures.)

Post a reply to this message

> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>>> The image is promissing, but too bright:
>>> is gamma correct?
>>> are albedo and conserve_energy used?
>>> are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?
>>> with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.
>>
>> Maybe using textures from metals.inc. Those have insane ambient values.
>> Should change them to ambient 0.
> 
> Alain, you know me better than that!
> 
> I used very low ambient and diffuse values.  I didn't use zero, because I'm not
> using blurred reflection.  (My focus for this module is the modeling, not the
> textures.)
> 
> 
Even without blured reflection, using ambient >0 for metals is not 
realistic.

Post a reply to this message

> Once again, using someone else's computer; I hope this goes through.
> 
> "Mr" <mauriceraybaud [at] hotmail dot fr>> wrote:
>> Courage for the hacking... If you do manage to commit (to GIT?) from an android
>> phone, I would be interested to know how.
> 
> If I commit, it will be through the Object Collection uploader. I'll let Le
> Forgeron worry about GitHub.
> 
>> The image is promissing, but too bright:
>> is gamma correct?
>> are albedo and conserve_energy used?
>> are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?
> 
> My gamma is always 1.0, and I always use conserve_energy.
> 
> I did not albedo, because I want the example to run in pre-3.7 scenes. Both
> gemstones use an entirely transparent pigment, so the diffuse value is
> irrelevant. For the specular value, I precalculated a base value using the
> albedo formula in parstxtr.cpp, and then reduced it according to a formula I
> developed to /estimate/ the Fresnel effect.
> 
>> with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.
> 
> I will consider lowering the lighting and using a darker wood for the table. I

> 
> 

I think he mean smaller area_light, using a point light, or not adding 
photons{area_light} to an area_light.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> >>> The image is promissing, but too bright:
> >>> is gamma correct?
> >>> are albedo and conserve_energy used?
> >>> are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?
> >>> with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.
> >>
> >> Maybe using textures from metals.inc. Those have insane ambient values.
> >> Should change them to ambient 0.
> >
> > Alain, you know me better than that!
> >
> > I used very low ambient and diffuse values.  I didn't use zero, because I'm not
> > using blurred reflection.  (My focus for this module is the modeling, not the
> > textures.)
> >
> >
> Even without blured reflection, using ambient >0 for metals is not
> realistic.

You know, it's rather frustrating when you notice you made a mistake, but can't
respond for another 6 days.  I used radiosity in that scene; there is no
ambient, period!

I did put a diffuse of 0.035 on the metals.  I did a render last night with zero
diffuse, and there is hardly a difference in appearance.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gemcuts-cam0-diffuse0.jpg' (48 KB)

Preview of image 'gemcuts-cam0-diffuse0.jpg'

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > "Mr" <mauriceraybaud [at] hotmail dot fr>> wrote:
> >> with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.
> >
> > I will consider lowering the lighting and using a darker wood for the table. I

>
> I think he mean smaller area_light, using a point light, or not adding
> photons{area_light} to an area_light.

I used no area lights in that render.

Post a reply to this message

"Mr" <mauriceraybaud [at] hotmail dot fr>> wrote:
>
> The image is promissing, but too bright:
> is gamma correct?
> are albedo and conserve_energy used?
> are specular / mirror intensity values realistic ones?
> with darker lighting and a more punctual one, caustics will contrast more.

I played with the lighting and the environment.  Since I can't use my newsreader
right now, I will have to upload the images one at a time.

This one has dimmed lighting.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gemcuts-cam0-dimlight.jpg' (42 KB)

Preview of image 'gemcuts-cam0-dimlight.jpg'