 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm working on a scene using textures from stones.inc, and I've noticed large
differences in the appearance of certain textures when rendered with radiosity.
the left side is without radiosity, the right side is with. The primary texture
is T_Stone43 and the secondary is T_Stone39
I know that this is the result of ambient values in the textures, but the
difference seems a little severe even so.
I can't really experiment with the settings much, as my scene takes almost two
days to render with radiosity, and that's using -RVP and giving povray top
priority on processor usage.
On a side note: does anybody have a good texture tutorial? I've created custom
textures before, but nothing terribly complex, and I'm mystified as to how some
of the definitions in the libraries work considering that they pack multiple
texture statements into one identifier. I understand that it's a layered
texture, but I'm confused as to how it gets parsed as a single texture and
subsequent definitions don't interfere.
Ideally, I'd like something that covers the new features like SSLT.
Second note: Bryce 7 has the ability to bake Light Probes for HDRI, and I was
wondering if this sort of thing could be done natively in povray using a fisheye
camera.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'floorsbs.png' (91 KB)
Preview of image 'floorsbs.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On a side note: does anybody have a good texture tutorial? I've created custom
> textures before, but nothing terribly complex, and I'm mystified as to how some
> of the definitions in the libraries work considering that they pack multiple
> texture statements into one identifier. I understand that it's a layered
> texture, but I'm confused as to how it gets parsed as a single texture and
> subsequent definitions don't interfere.
I've found that texture creation is going to be difficult and require lots of
experimentation no matter the renderer.
> Second note: Bryce 7 has the ability to bake Light Probes for HDRI, and I was
> wondering if this sort of thing could be done natively in povray using a fisheye
> camera.
I think so. Just output to OpenEXR or similar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm working on a scene using textures from stones.inc, and I've noticed large
> differences in the appearance of certain textures when rendered with radiosity.
>
> the left side is without radiosity, the right side is with. The primary texture
> is T_Stone43 and the secondary is T_Stone39
On the left, the ambient part of the textures makes them visible.
On the right side, there is NO ambient, and obviously, there is no
actual light and no object with emission in it's finish.
>
> I know that this is the result of ambient values in the textures, but the
> difference seems a little severe even so.
When rendering using radiosity, the ambient component of the textures is
turned OFF. You need to add emission float to the finish to make the
texture glow.
You can add a skysphere whitch, by default, is emissive.
You can add at least one actual light_source.
You can add some large object with
texture{pigment{rgb 1}finish{emission 1}}
>
> I can't really experiment with the settings much, as my scene takes almost two
> days to render with radiosity, and that's using -RVP and giving povray top
> priority on processor usage.
>
> On a side note: does anybody have a good texture tutorial? I've created custom
> textures before, but nothing terribly complex, and I'm mystified as to how some
> of the definitions in the libraries work considering that they pack multiple
> texture statements into one identifier. I understand that it's a layered
> texture, but I'm confused as to how it gets parsed as a single texture and
> subsequent definitions don't interfere.
>
> Ideally, I'd like something that covers the new features like SSLT.
>
> Second note: Bryce 7 has the ability to bake Light Probes for HDRI, and I was
> wondering if this sort of thing could be done natively in povray using a fisheye
> camera.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <kua### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
> > I'm working on a scene using textures from stones.inc, and I've noticed large
> > differences in the appearance of certain textures when rendered with radiosity.
> >
> > the left side is without radiosity, the right side is with. The primary texture
> > is T_Stone43 and the secondary is T_Stone39
>
> On the left, the ambient part of the textures makes them visible.
> On the right side, there is NO ambient, and obviously, there is no
> actual light (snip)
There is light, it's just not in this area.
> You can add a skysphere whitch, by default, is emissive.
> You can add at least one actual light_source.
> You can add some large object with
> texture{pigment{rgb 1}finish{emission 1}}
>
I have six light sources. There is no difference in lighting between the two
samples. Granted the part I'm wondering about is in moderate shadow, but it
should be receiving some of the light. The primary texture is at least the same
color when rendered with radiosity, which indicates to me that the color of the
secondary relies too much on it's ambient value.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> I have six light sources. There is no difference in lighting between the two
> samples. Granted the part I'm wondering about is in moderate shadow, but it
> should be receiving some of the light. The primary texture is at least the same
> color when rendered with radiosity, which indicates to me that the color of the
> secondary relies too much on it's ambient value.
Adding to the finish(es) an emission value that matches the existing ambient
value should fix that issue completely when using radiosity.
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.11.2014 21:18, schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> I'm working on a scene using textures from stones.inc, and I've noticed large
> differences in the appearance of certain textures when rendered with radiosity.
>
> the left side is without radiosity, the right side is with. The primary texture
> is T_Stone43 and the secondary is T_Stone39
>
> I know that this is the result of ambient values in the textures, but the
> difference seems a little severe even so.
This is all because the textures were designed before radiosity got
widespread use (maybe even before the feature ever existed), and they
were quite obviously designed for effect, rather than from physical
principles.
Materials from stock commercial 3D models (like, say, from Renderosity,
DAZ3D or the like) suffer from this very same problem: Someone starts
with their favourite light setup, tweaks a figure's material until it
looks good, and then sells it for money. But it never fits with other
people's models, because they are tweaked to look best with some other
light setup.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> Second note: Bryce 7 has the ability to bake Light Probes for HDRI, and I was
> wondering if this sort of thing could be done natively in povray using a fisheye
> camera.
I've created many HDR images in POV-Ray for use as image-based lighting (IBL)
and environment maps.
Use a spherical camera and render a scene at a 2:1 aspect ratio (e.g., +w2048
+h1024) and output the image as EXR using +fe
You can then wrap the image around a sphere using map_type 1 for the image_map
and a finish having some ambient and/or emissive value (e.g., ambient 1 emission
1)
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Materials from stock commercial 3D models (like, say, from Renderosity,
> DAZ3D or the like) suffer from this very same problem: Someone starts
> with their favourite light setup, tweaks a figure's material until it
> looks good, and then sells it for money. But it never fits with other
> people's models, because they are tweaked to look best with some other
> light setup.
This is precisely why I included the parameters RC3M_Ambient and RC3M_Diffuse in
my Object Collection module RC3Metal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> > I have six light sources. There is no difference in lighting between the two
> > samples. Granted the part I'm wondering about is in moderate shadow, but it
> > should be receiving some of the light. The primary texture is at least the same
> > color when rendered with radiosity, which indicates to me that the color of the
> > secondary relies too much on it's ambient value.
>
> Adding to the finish(es) an emission value that matches the existing ambient
> value should fix that issue completely when using radiosity.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
So I guess the question is: Does the emission keyword supercede ambient? should
the textures in the libraries be updated to reflect that?
and thanks for the tips on HDRI. Now I just need a step-by-step tutorial on how
to use it in scene.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
>> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
>>> I have six light sources. There is no difference in lighting between the two
>>> samples. Granted the part I'm wondering about is in moderate shadow, but it
>>> should be receiving some of the light. The primary texture is at least the same
>>> color when rendered with radiosity, which indicates to me that the color of the
>>> secondary relies too much on it's ambient value.
>>
>> Adding to the finish(es) an emission value that matches the existing ambient
>> value should fix that issue completely when using radiosity.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>
> So I guess the question is: Does the emission keyword supercede ambient? should
> the textures in the libraries be updated to reflect that?
NO ! and NO !
>
> and thanks for the tips on HDRI. Now I just need a step-by-step tutorial on how
> to use it in scene.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
>
ambient is meant as a cheap alternative to diffuse inter-reflection that
radiosity does.
emission is meant for textures that actualy *emit* light. Adding
emission to most textures will wrongfully make them emit light in
radiosity scenes.
emission never supercede ambient, they are totaly different beasts.
Most textures using high ambient are probably for simulating some amount
of translucency. For example, PinkAlabaster is a fairly translucent
stone and the texture for it have a high ambient. Beter done using
subsurface that ambient, but much slower...
If you look at the metal textures, they have insane ambient that looks
resonably good when alone with a black background. Add any environment,
and it becomes unrealistic and often bad looking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
