 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A glimpse into the future of POV-Ray's Subsurface Light Transport; the
left bead uses a classic texture; the others use SSLT textures with
increasing translucency; material definition syntax is as follows:
texture {
pigment {
bozo
color_map {
[0.0 color rgb <1.00,0.05,0.05>]
[0.4 color rgb <1.00,0.80,0.05>]
[0.7 color rgb <1.00,1.00,1.00>]
[1.0 color rgb <0.05,0.80,1.00>]
}
scale <0.3,1,0.3>
}
finish {
diffuse 0.6
ambient 0
specular 1.0 roughness 0.001
reflection { 1.0 fresnel }
conserve_energy
subsurface { translucency Trans }
}
}
interior { ior 1.5 }
where Trans is either a float or an RGB vector.
Note how the effective color is determined by the pigment (except for
unusually "low density" materials, where some side effects kick in);
also note the addition of transparency where the object's "density" is
particularly low compared to its size.
I also threw out some yet undiscovered bugs.
Please don't get too excited yet though: The changes will not make it
into 3.7.0; I expect to rush out a patch though as soon as a 3.7.0
version is released with a non-beta license.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'translucency_test.png' (251 KB)
Preview of image 'translucency_test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Same beads, illuminated from behind and without the ground plane
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'translucency_test.png' (124 KB)
Preview of image 'translucency_test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/02/2011 5:58 PM, clipka wrote:
> Same beads, illuminated from behind and without the ground plane
Looks good! Keep up the good work.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> A glimpse into the future of POV-Ray's Subsurface Light Transport...
Wow, that looks really great Christoph! I've been thinking about SSLT ivory
since Stephen first showed his lamp scene; such a pain to get it right! Here are
a couple of 10cm-long test rhinos, on left with no SSLT, on right with SSLT base
texture and layered texture with pigment at filter 0.6 (trying to match a
reference photo), no radiosity. Not too bad I guess...
But your new method looks to be SO MUCH better! A few questions:
* Will radiosity work okay with it? I get lots of blocky artifacts with SSLT and
radiosity in the current implementation.
* Will we be able to set a scattering color that's different than the specified
pigment?
* Does this new version still use the scattering/absorbing coefficients and
mm_per_unit?
Regardless, really looking forward to trying it - thanks for your hard work!
Cheers,
Rob
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rhinos.png' (560 KB)
Preview of image 'rhinos.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/02/2011 8:16 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> I've been thinking about SSLT ivory
> since Stephen first showed his lamp scene; such a pain to get it right!
You're telling me ;-)
Have you tried putting your models in a scene? I'd be interested in the
results.
> Here are
> a couple of 10cm-long test rhinos, on left with no SSLT, on right with SSLT base
> texture and layered texture with pigment at filter 0.6 (trying to match a
> reference photo), no radiosity. Not too bad I guess...
Not too bad at all, at all. I've not thought of layering over SSLT.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.02.2011 21:16, schrieb Robert McGregor:
>
> * Will radiosity work okay with it? I get lots of blocky artifacts with SSLT and
> radiosity in the current implementation.
I'm not sure - that depends on what you're seeing. I found and
eliminated a bug in the code that kind of "shattered" a surface
according to which component of the surface normal was smallest. Other
than that, I'm not aware of any problems with combining radiosity & SSLT
(except that SSLT-enabled objects currently don't actually use the
radiosity code, but an inferior substitute).
> * Will we be able to set a scattering color that's different than the specified
> pigment?
Yup - the sample images actually do use this, being more translucent for
reds and oranges (giving them the brownish hue seen in the backlit
scene). However, the effect of different translucency settings is not as
straightforward as the effect of the pigment (as can be seen on the
rightmost bead in the examples, in which the reddening effect is less
present).
Also note that if you want an object to appear as if coated with a
different color, you'll still need to layer textures.
> * Does this new version still use the scattering/absorbing coefficients and
> mm_per_unit?
No - the current parameterization will cease to be supported. For the
new syntax, see the sample code I posted with the first image.
The mm_per_unit setting will still be required though, as the
"translucency" parameter value is specified in mm instead of POV-Ray
units, so that the same material can be used regardless of scene scale.
> Regardless, really looking forward to trying it - thanks for your hard work!
Heh - thank /you/ people for encouraging me to pick up that work again :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.02.2011 21:40, schrieb Stephen:
> On 20/02/2011 8:16 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
>> I've been thinking about SSLT ivory
>> since Stephen first showed his lamp scene; such a pain to get it right!
>
> You're telling me ;-)
> Have you tried putting your models in a scene? I'd be interested in the
> results.
I guess the new parameterization will really make it a lot easier: It'll
boil down to first picking a suitable pigment, and then just toying
around with a single translucency parameter until it looks convincing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/02/2011 9:27 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Have you tried putting your models in a scene? I'd be interested in the
>> results.
>
> I guess the new parameterization will really make it a lot easier: It'll
> boil down to first picking a suitable pigment, and then just toying
> around with a single translucency parameter until it looks convincing.
Better and better :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht
news:4d618629$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Heh - thank /you/ people for encouraging me to pick up that work again :-)
Hail to the Chief! Great work indeed.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 20/02/2011 8:16 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> > Here are a couple of 10cm-long test rhinos, on left with no SSLT, on right
> > with SSLT base texture and layered texture with pigment at filter 0.6
> > (trying to match a reference photo), no radiosity. Not too bad I guess...
>
> Not too bad at all, at all. I've not thought of layering over SSLT.
Here's what I was using - curious to see what this looks like on your lamp:
// SSLT Units
#declare SSLT_UNIT_CM = 10;
#declare SSLT_UNIT_M = 10 * 100;
#declare SSLT_UNIT_IN = 10 * 2.54;
#declare SSLT_UNIT_FT = 10 * 2.54 * 12;
#declare SSLT_UNIT_YD = 10 * 2.54 * 12 * 3;
#declare SSLT_Samples = <16, 8>*8;
global_settings {
assumed_gamma 1
mm_per_unit SSLT_UNIT_CM*10
subsurface { samples SSLT_Samples.x, SSLT_Samples.y }
}
#include "rhino.inc" // the model is 1 POV-unit long
object { Rhino
texture {
pigment { rgb 1 transmit 0.1 }
finish {
// ivory?
subsurface { <0.70, 0.72, 0.57>, <0.000314, 0.00049, 0.00067> }
}
}
texture {
pigment { srgb<235,220,190>/255 filter 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.1 scale 0.15 }
finish {
specular 0.7 roughness 0.01
reflection { 0.05, 0.95 fresnel } conserve_energy
}
}
interior { ior 1.54 }
}
Cheers,
Rob
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
