 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mr" <m******r******at_hotmail_dot_fr> wrote:
> "Clarence1898" <dle### [at] comcast net> wrote:
> > I was going through some old drives and found this one. I posted this probably
> > 20 years ago as my obligatory first RSOCP. I came across Povray in the early
> > 90s and have used it off and on ever since. I thought it might be interesting
> > to see what programming Pov scenes would be like in the 1970's. Just for a
> > little background, I've been a mainframe programmer since 1969, and now enjoy
> > programming PC's.
>
> Hi,
> Did you render this on a current POV-Ray version (3.7 or 3.8b), and if so with
> the proper version directive?
>
> I love the concept, the visual ideas, and they read like a very nice picture...
> So though I'm not used to that, it motivates me to use for the first time (and
> maybe the last if it comes out too harsh) a very meanly well-intended sarcasm :
> could you please use conserve_energy keyword with your metals, as they are
> currently so blindingly bright that I can't see the picture ! ;-P
> I wish Cousin Ricky's macros could be included in POV-Ray sources, so that the
> default way of calling a metal would have all that hard-wired. because users
> should be able to trust the defaults to not do that kind of thing. To sum it up
> use fresnel, ior, conserve_energy and a sum of diffuse+specular+reflection below
> 1.(most clean and shiny metals should have very very low diffuse)
>
> Seriously, nice hues and punched cards though, as I do see them!
Thank You.
It was rendered by version 3.5 probably 20 years ago. I recovered the images
from an old hard drive, unfortunately I could not find the original source. I
still have a couple of drives to check, hopefully the source is on one of them.
I would like to render it on a newer version.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2025-08-05 07:47, Mr wrote:
>
> could you please use conserve_energy keyword with your metals, as they are
> currently so blindingly bright that I can't see the picture ! ;-P
Conserve_energy is intended for transparent textures; it is not relevant
for metals (except maybe transparent aluminum). The usual problem with
legacy metallic textures is diffuse and ambient finishes that are too
high, and that appears to be the problem with the typeball in this image.
> I wish Cousin Ricky's macros could be included in POV-Ray sources, so that the
> default way of calling a metal would have all that hard-wired. because users
> should be able to trust the defaults to not do that kind of thing.
I have proposed updates of metals.inc and golds.inc that use textures
derived from RC3Metal. I will probably submit a pull request when my
Git learning curve levels off somewhat. But this will also require a
consensus resolution to the issue I raise in the p.beta-test thread
"Ambient and diffuse for include files?"
> To sum it up
> use fresnel, ior, conserve_energy
Fresnel, ior, and conserve_energy are for non-metallic textures. For
metals, the 'metallic' keyword takes care of all these factors.
> and a sum of diffuse+specular+reflection below
> 1.(most clean and shiny metals should have very very low diffuse)
Diffuse+reflection should be below 1; specular albedo should be
comparable to reflection, if you use use specular at all. Yes, diffuse
should be low, but I would add that the ambient should be even lower;
the ambient-to-diffuse ratio should be no higher than for the other
finishes in your scene. For a purely metallic texture, both diffuse and
ambient should be zero, though the world usually isn't that clean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2025-08-05 à 19:45, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
> On 2025-08-05 07:47, Mr wrote:
>>
>> could you please use conserve_energy keyword with your metals, as they are
>> currently so blindingly bright that I can't see the picture ! ;-P
>
> Conserve_energy is intended for transparent textures; it is not relevant
> for metals (except maybe transparent aluminum). The usual problem with
> legacy metallic textures is diffuse and ambient finishes that are too
> high, and that appears to be the problem with the typeball in this image.
>
>> I wish Cousin Ricky's macros could be included in POV-Ray sources, so that the
>> default way of calling a metal would have all that hard-wired. because users
>> should be able to trust the defaults to not do that kind of thing.
>
> I have proposed updates of metals.inc and golds.inc that use textures
> derived from RC3Metal. I will probably submit a pull request when my
> Git learning curve levels off somewhat. But this will also require a
> consensus resolution to the issue I raise in the p.beta-test thread
> "Ambient and diffuse for include files?"
>
>> To sum it up
>> use fresnel, ior, conserve_energy
>
> Fresnel, ior, and conserve_energy are for non-metallic textures. For
> metals, the 'metallic' keyword takes care of all these factors.
>
>> and a sum of diffuse+specular+reflection below
>> 1.(most clean and shiny metals should have very very low diffuse)
>
> Diffuse+reflection should be below 1; specular albedo should be
> comparable to reflection, if you use use specular at all. Yes, diffuse
> should be low, but I would add that the ambient should be even lower;
> the ambient-to-diffuse ratio should be no higher than for the other
> finishes in your scene. For a purely metallic texture, both diffuse and
> ambient should be zero, though the world usually isn't that clean.
>
I use ambient 0 for my metallic textures. I also tent to use diffuse no
higher than 0.1, and that's for the dullest metals.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
