 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18-02-15 à 14:26, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> Here's my latest town render. You can see the pixelation in the
> reflections. I haven't been able to get rid of it using more focal blur
> and anti-aliasing. I will keep trying.
>
>
> Mike
It don't look like pixelisation but rather like some noise.
The possibilities to get rid if it are, in my biew :
1) Use +r4 +am2
2) increase the sample count of your camera's focal blur.
Increasing the maximum recursion level works great when using
reflection{roughness Something}. Most of the time, it have only a
negligeable effect on the rendering speed, but cause antialiasing to
work harder in those noisy areas. You also may want to reduce the aa
threshold from the default of 0.3 to something like 0.1 to 0.05.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/15/2018 7:32 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 18-02-15 à 14:26, Mike Horvath a écrit :
>> Here's my latest town render. You can see the pixelation in the
>> reflections. I haven't been able to get rid of it using more focal
>> blur and anti-aliasing. I will keep trying.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> It don't look like pixelisation but rather like some noise.
> The possibilities to get rid if it are, in my biew :
> 1) Use +r4 +am2
> 2) increase the sample count of your camera's focal blur.
>
> Increasing the maximum recursion level works great when using
> reflection{roughness Something}. Most of the time, it have only a
> negligeable effect on the rendering speed, but cause antialiasing to
> work harder in those noisy areas. You also may want to reduce the aa
> threshold from the default of 0.3 to something like 0.1 to 0.05.
That worked well on my smaller scene. I tried on my larger scene too,
but it was taking a long long time to render. I will keep trying.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
> // this method is faster, but requires a focal blur and/or extra
> antialiasing
> #declare BlurAmount = 0.1;
> #macro BlurredReflectionRegularNormals(InPigment, InFinish, InNormal)
> // texture
> // {
> pigment { InPigment }
> finish { InFinish }
> normal { InNormal }
> normal {bumps BlurAmount scale 0.001}
> // }
I didn't know that multiple normal statements would actually 'combine'; I
thought the 2nd would completely override the 1st or cause an error (like trying
to use multiple pigment or finish blocks.) Interesting if true! I need to check
this out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/16/2018 11:08 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> I didn't know that multiple normal statements would actually 'combine'; I
> thought the 2nd would completely override the 1st or cause an error (like trying
> to use multiple pigment or finish blocks.) Interesting if true! I need to check
> this out.
>
>
>
>
>
I'm not really sure, but the effect might be the same as using a normal
map and averaging the two normals. Or not.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> I'm not really sure, but the effect might be the same as using a normal
> map and averaging the two normals. Or not.
>
Yeah, I just re-checked the documentation; you're right, there *can* be more
than one normal statement. (I obviously haven't taken a look there in awhile,
ha.) I probably never thought about it because of the 'caveat' that's mentioned,
about unpredictable behavior.
This is one of those situations that kind of bugs me: a texture can have more
than one of a *certain* kind of entry-- like normals-- but not another kind of
entry (like pigments). I know there are behind-the-scenes technical reasons for
this disparity-- but from a user standpoint, it does seem arbitrary. It's hard
to keep these 'special rules' (my phrase) in my head at all times :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.02.2018 um 06:03 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 2/16/2018 11:08 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>> I didn't know that multiple normal statements would actually 'combine'; I
>> thought the 2nd would completely override the 1st or cause an error
>> (like trying
>> to use multiple pigment or finish blocks.) Interesting if true! I need
>> to check
>> this out.
>
> I'm not really sure, but the effect might be the same as using a normal
> map and averaging the two normals. Or not.
The latter, actually.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I posted five images to Flickr showing my experiments with blurred
reflections.
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/159291-pov-ray-surface-realism/
I asked on Eurobricks which is the most realistic image? I will also ask
here. Which do you think look the most like real LEGO bricks?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/17/2018 03:28 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> I posted five images to Flickr showing my experiments with blurred
> reflections.
>
>
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/159291-pov-ray-surface-realism/
>
>
> I asked on Eurobricks which is the most realistic image? I will also ask
> here. Which do you think look the most like real LEGO bricks?
>
>
> Mike
I like #1 and #2. In all cases, the black road is way too reflective for
lego (although I like black reflective on principle). Unless Lego has
changed a lot since I was a kid.
--
dik
Rendered 920576 of 921600 pixels (99%)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/17/2018 4:01 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> On 02/17/2018 03:28 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> I posted five images to Flickr showing my experiments with blurred
>> reflections.
>>
>>
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/159291-pov-ray-surface-realism/
>>
>>
>> I asked on Eurobricks which is the most realistic image? I will also
>> ask here. Which do you think look the most like real LEGO bricks?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> I like #1 and #2. In all cases, the black road is way too reflective for
> lego (although I like black reflective on principle). Unless Lego has
> changed a lot since I was a kid.
>
All my bricks are so old and scarred I can't really come to a conclusion
on my own. For instance, holding a brick so it reflects light from my
lamp, I can make out the bulb pretty clearly as well as the lamp shade.
But other nearby objects are barely visible. I don't know if brand new
bricks would reflect more.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2/17/2018 4:01 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> > On 02/17/2018 03:28 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> >> I posted five images to Flickr showing my experiments with blurred
> >> reflections.
> >>
> >>
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/159291-pov-ray-surface-realism/
> >>
> >>
> >> I asked on Eurobricks which is the most realistic image? I will also
> >> ask here. Which do you think look the most like real LEGO bricks?
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike
> >
> > I like #1 and #2. In all cases, the black road is way too reflective for
> > lego (although I like black reflective on principle). Unless Lego has
> > changed a lot since I was a kid.
> >
>
> All my bricks are so old and scarred I can't really come to a conclusion
> on my own. For instance, holding a brick so it reflects light from my
> lamp, I can make out the bulb pretty clearly as well as the lamp shade.
> But other nearby objects are barely visible. I don't know if brand new
> bricks would reflect more.
>
>
> Mike
Hi,
I have another observation for some blur reflection material, some surface is
more blur when you look it perpendicular. Just like variance reflection(aoi
pattern reflection amplitude), the blur has its aoi pattern.
But I don't know this is suitable for lego.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
