Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> On 05/14/2011 09:43 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> >> direction<0,0.0,.0>
> >
> > I think you are confusing "direction" with "look_at"... this is a
> > clear case of RTFM (remember that with POV-Ray docs, the "F" in RTFM
> > *always* stands for "fine").
> >
> lol ... nicely put!

No no no gents, I agree that the manual is fine, but this is a case of RTFP,
with P standing for post. my problem lay with the BW rendering, and the weird
results from this particular .pov. My reasons for wanting to render this (too
lazy to read the fine manual) have nothing to do with the results.

Post a reply to this message

> No no no gents, I agree that the manual is fine, but this is a case
> of RTFP, with P standing for post. my problem lay with the BW
> rendering, and the weird results from this particular .pov. My
> reasons for wanting to render this (too lazy to read the fine manual)
> have nothing to do with the results.

   As I loosely suggested before, try changing the line

   direction <0,0.0,.0>

   to what I think you wanted instead:

   look_at <0,0,0>

   and you will get ride of the "weird" result, which is caused by your
choice of a null direction vector and the fact that there is a white
background and a black plane on your scene: what you are seeing is the
part of the white background above the black plane at y=3. No bug here:
your see just what you typed.

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres
		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

On 05/15/2011 06:45 PM, Marco wrote:
> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>  wrote:
>> On 05/14/2011 09:43 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

>>>> direction<0,0.0,.0>
>>>
>>> I think you are confusing "direction" with "look_at"... this is a
>>> clear case of RTFM (remember that with POV-Ray docs, the "F" in RTFM
>>> *always* stands for "fine").
>>>
>> lol ... nicely put!
>
> No no no gents, I agree that the manual is fine, but this is a case of RTFP,
> with P standing for post. my problem lay with the BW rendering, and the weird
> results from this particular .pov. My reasons for wanting to render this (too
> lazy to read the fine manual) have nothing to do with the results.
>
>

a picture is worth a thousand words:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_3#Placing_the_Camera

the image in this section explains things very clearly ... oh yeah, it 
sounds like it wouldn't hurt to read the sections that follow either

lastly ... maybe posting in p.general or p.newusers would have been your 
first best bet as this is clearly not a bug ... just a misunderstanding 
of the camera attributes on your part

Post a reply to this message

You're right, I am not fluent in Povray, but, still, why does
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-1.pov render like
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-1.jpg (in flat B&W)? (and
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-01.pov renders like
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-01.jpg, which *does* produce a nice 3D-ish
effect) Surely, the camera placement should not influence this (it influences
which way the cam looks, not *how* it looks)?

Mea culpa for posting a bad example. Thanks to all who had the patience to bear
with me.
Oh and te image could perhaps be updated to show z+ and z- as well asl x+ and x-
and y+ and y-. Those are all rather intuitive to me, but the z could (according
to my intuition) swing either way.

Post a reply to this message

Addendum to my previous post: I've just continued working on the bollen-01.pov
(see http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-02.pov and
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-02.jpg) What I've done is take this
bollen-01.pov which rendered fine, but not with all the features I wanted, so I
made a few changes to it (commented out the reference to bollen-01.inc and I
commented out texture { AOIDefault_Texture }, in sphere 2
And changed the background { color rgb <0.0,0.0,0.0> } to <1,1,1>.

These are all minor changes which should not affect the sudden lack of color,
right?

BTW the include file mentioned in the previous post is
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-01.inc, You can tell, I made this with Art of
Illusion, hence the include file and often unrounds 0 to
-1.6287802428659799E-16> or something like that.

Post a reply to this message

Le 16/05/2011 10:03, Marco a écrit :
>  which *does* produce a nice 3D-ish
> effect) Surely, the camera placement should not influence this (it influences
> which way the cam looks, not *how* it looks)?

because there is one with the light behind the camera (hence 3D effect)
and another where the light is in full front of the camera : the object
is just hiding the light, but get none to send to the camera, so it is a
black dot.

-- 
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.

Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/16/2011 05:03 AM, Marco wrote:
> Oh and te image could perhaps be updated to show z+ and z- as well asl x+ and x-
> and y+ and y-. Those are all rather intuitive to me, but the z could (according
> to my intuition) swing either way.

you're not thinking 3D here ... isn't -z 180 degrees from +z

i usually set up camera with a location vector of -z so that a rotate of 
+x moves the camera up (-x moves it down) and +y moves it clockwise (-y 
counterclockwise) ... two separate transforms:

#declare CamPos = <0,0,-10>;
#declare LookAt = <0,0,0>;

camera {
   perspective
   location CamPos
   rotate x*2
   rotate y*-10
   look_at  LookAt
   }

this example 2 degrees up and 10 degrees counterclockwise

Post a reply to this message

On 05/14/2011 09:16 AM, Marco wrote:
> Oh, and also, if I put a .inc in the include dir in C:\Program Files\POV-Ray for
> Windows v3.62\include and it can't always find them, not even if they're in the
> pov's directory.

there is nothing technically stopping you from putting the .inc files 
that /you/ create in the distribution directory tree, however, it is 
generally considered bad practice. try creating directories in your 
users file space ... for example:

usersdirpath\POV-Ray\Source
usersdirpath\POV-Ray\Includes

then in usersdirpath\.povray\your-version\povray.ini make these entries:

Library_Path="usersdirpath\POV-Ray\Source"
Library_Path="usersdirpath\POV-Ray\Includes"

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_1.2#Library_Paths

we all like to help, but you /really/ need to spend some time going over 
the documentation ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.05.2011 10:16, schrieb Marco:
> Addendum to my previous post: I've just continued working on the bollen-01.pov
> (see http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-02.pov and
> http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-02.jpg) What I've done is take this
> bollen-01.pov which rendered fine, but not with all the features I wanted, so I
> made a few changes to it (commented out the reference to bollen-01.inc and I
> commented out texture { AOIDefault_Texture }, in sphere 2
> And changed the background { color rgb<0.0,0.0,0.0>  } to<1,1,1>.
>
> These are all minor changes which should not affect the sudden lack of color,
> right?

I'm afraid to say this, but: No. The texture is what makes the 
difference. The default is pitch black, so unless you specify anything 
else that's exactly what you get.

You can change the default though, by specifying a texture in the 
#default statement.

Try

     texture { pigment { color rgb <1.0,1.0,1.0> } }

for starters.

(Maybe you also want to read the tutorial section of the Fine Manual ;-))

Post a reply to this message

Hi all, by popular request I've moved my problem here:
web.4dd232e8a1b57d466731f09e0@news.povray.org>

Hope it gets solved there.

Post a reply to this message