"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> With regard to viewing the color map with a "linear pattern" - the problem I
> always had/have with adjusting some of the patterns is that I want to adjust a
> certain _part_ of it, and I don't know which part I'm trying to adjust. With
> wood, for instance, if I want MORE of a certain tone, do I put that in the
> center of the color map, or the "ends" at 0 or 1? Because some of these
> patterns don't get distributed proportionally.
> So that's why I wanted to plot the numerical values to _see_ what the
> distribution was in the pattern itself, not the color map that then gets
> re-distributed from the native "linear" definition.
I see the problem and it get more complicated when the ends of the color map are
the same color or the same color is repeated in the color map. Every pattern
takes the color map and twists it. It can take a lot of trial and error to find
that perfect arrangement. And of course we're dealing with 3d. What you have
done is show the values of a pattern in 3d.
I've been playing around with patterns, trying to get a handle on how qualify
differences in color placement. I took all the 'simple' patterns (agate,granite,
,gradient and the like) with all the waves types and did a simply test. Starting
at <0,0,0> with increments of .1 ending at <1,1,1> in a strait line.(using
evaluate pigment) I took the average of the differences between points. So now I
have a bunch of numbers. I don't know if they are a true representation of how
the patterns differ ,but it's a start.
One thing was clear the gradient x, gradient y gradient z patterns numbers
where the same for each wave form. So maybe I've got something.
Well enough rambling back to work:) I need to go over your code;)
Post a reply to this message