 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Media for atmosphere is confounding me.
The old way was so much better it seems to me now.
Anyone get a reasonable, and useable, atmospheric media working for
various situations? I.e., different camera/object distances and number
of lights so when you make a new scene the media (as used for
atmosphere) doesn't wreak havoc while adjusting it endlessly?
I was taming the POV-Ray 3.0* 'atmosphere' fairly well until I moved
along to the 3.1 chaos.
Just curious how others are doing so far, and if there is any logic to
it which I might have overlooked.
I understand the basic scaling syndrome of keeping media density in sync
with container objects, but I've been lost too many times trying the
containerless "air", since each scene is not the same as the last.
Well, I'll quit complaining for now. Thanks in advance for any notions
out there you all may have.
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And why is it that the media is full of visible artifacts, regardless of sampling
rates/interval, when for instance Truespace 4's volumetric effects are silky smooth?
I
find it really annoying not being able to just use Dust_Thickness=5 or the like to
simulate an atmosphere.
Andy
Bob Hughes wrote in message <369ECBDE.8FD96178@aol.com>...
>Media for atmosphere is confounding me.
>The old way was so much better it seems to me now.
>Anyone get a reasonable, and useable, atmospheric media working for
>various situations? I.e., different camera/object distances and number
>of lights so when you make a new scene the media (as used for
>atmosphere) doesn't wreak havoc while adjusting it endlessly?
>I was taming the POV-Ray 3.0* 'atmosphere' fairly well until I moved
>along to the 3.1 chaos.
>Just curious how others are doing so far, and if there is any logic to
>it which I might have overlooked.
>I understand the basic scaling syndrome of keeping media density in sync
>with container objects, but I've been lost too many times trying the
>containerless "air", since each scene is not the same as the last.
>Well, I'll quit complaining for now. Thanks in advance for any notions
>out there you all may have.
>
>--
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
>=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's exactly what I'm after too, sounds like.
Thing is, I can get that "smooth" look at a close proximity to the
camera in a confined space, which goes for the same as media in a
container object. What I fail to do is get large open spaces to do
likewise.
That annoying starry, speckled air that you have probably seen from what
you say. I can't even select a tiny swath of the image and render that
at incredible interval/samples to see if it works, so no sense in
attempting a full size render. From what I do see of the tests I
apparently can't find the right numbers to use, even if it means a week
to render.
P-R 3.0* 'atmosphere' was an overlooked godsend by comparison!
Well, maybe we are doing something wrong too, that's why I ask...
Andrew Cocker wrote:
>
> And why is it that the media is full of visible artifacts, regardless of sampling
> rates/interval, when for instance Truespace 4's volumetric effects are silky
smooth? I
> find it really annoying not being able to just use Dust_Thickness=5 or the like to
> simulate an atmosphere.
>
> Andy
>
> Bob Hughes wrote in message <369ECBDE.8FD96178@aol.com>...
> >Media for atmosphere is confounding me.
> >The old way was so much better it seems to me now.
> >Anyone get a reasonable, and useable, atmospheric media working for
> >various situations? I.e., different camera/object distances and number
> >of lights so when you make a new scene the media (as used for
> >atmosphere) doesn't wreak havoc while adjusting it endlessly?
> >I was taming the POV-Ray 3.0* 'atmosphere' fairly well until I moved
> >along to the 3.1 chaos.
> >Just curious how others are doing so far, and if there is any logic to
> >it which I might have overlooked.
> >I understand the basic scaling syndrome of keeping media density in sync
> >with container objects, but I've been lost too many times trying the
> >containerless "air", since each scene is not the same as the last.
> >Well, I'll quit complaining for now. Thanks in advance for any notions
> >out there you all may have.
> >
> >--
> > omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> > http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> >=Bob
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There would have been two solutions to implement volumetrics in povray : the
first one (probably the one chosen in commercial packages) is to simulate
them in a user-friendly but simplistic and limited way ; the second one
(chosen by the pov-team) is to do it the hard way, by recreating real-life
phenomena. This gives (advanced) povray users a complete control on media
effects with one unique general syntax. Some media stuff we saw recently was
really amazing so the choice is good news. The less good news is that media
is obviously very difficult to master, and that simple effects are hard to
achieve and require a lot trial-and-error, noticeably for those who don't
understand the underlying physics (like me).
One solution would be for one of our media wizards to build a library of
specialised macros for particular situations. For instance, a "simple
atmosphere" macro could look like this :
SimpleAtmosphere(color, density, sampling)
with "density" and "sampling" from 0 to 1
This macro would produce a simple haze that would cast shadows and add a
nice halo around the light sources. From what I read in the povray docs,
there are many ways a halo can be produced (emission, scattering etc.), but
maybe there is one standard halo setting that would do the trick in most
situations. If this is just plain stupid, just tell me.
While I'm day-dreaming, here is a nice cloud macro...
SimpleCloud(BottomCorner,TopCorner,color,density,wooliness,sampling)
This macro would produce a ovoid cloud in the box defined by BottomCorner,
TopCorner, would of course cast shadows and be properly shadowed itself.
Wooliness (0->1) would control the sheepish aspect of the cloud, of course.
Gilles Tran
Bob Hughes wrote:
> Media for atmosphere is confounding me.
> The old way was so much better it seems to me now.
> Anyone get a reasonable, and useable, atmospheric media working for
> various situations? I.e., different camera/object distances and number
> of lights so when you make a new scene the media (as used for
> atmosphere) doesn't wreak havoc while adjusting it endlessly?
> I was taming the POV-Ray 3.0* 'atmosphere' fairly well until I moved
> along to the 3.1 chaos.
> Just curious how others are doing so far, and if there is any logic to
> it which I might have overlooked.
> I understand the basic scaling syndrome of keeping media density in sync
> with container objects, but I've been lost too many times trying the
> containerless "air", since each scene is not the same as the last.
> Well, I'll quit complaining for now. Thanks in advance for any notions
> out there you all may have.
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> =Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's a REALLY GOOD IDEA! Who would be willing to do that? Ken? Ron
Parker? Warp?
We could even include a reference to them in the VFAQ.
Jim
Gilles Tran wrote in message <369F762C.CC65BE0A@inapg.inra.fr>...
<snip>
>One solution would be for one of our media wizards to build a library of
>specialised macros for particular situations. For instance, a "simple
>atmosphere" macro could look like this :
>
>SimpleAtmosphere(color, density, sampling)
>with "density" and "sampling" from 0 to 1
>
>This macro would produce a simple haze that would cast shadows and add a
>nice halo around the light sources. From what I read in the povray docs,
>there are many ways a halo can be produced (emission, scattering etc.), but
>maybe there is one standard halo setting that would do the trick in most
>situations. If this is just plain stupid, just tell me.
>
>While I'm day-dreaming, here is a nice cloud macro...
>SimpleCloud(BottomCorner,TopCorner,color,density,wooliness,sampling)
>This macro would produce a ovoid cloud in the box defined by BottomCorner,
>TopCorner, would of course cast shadows and be properly shadowed itself.
>Wooliness (0->1) would control the sheepish aspect of the cloud, of course.
>
>Gilles Tran
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:28:57 -0500, Jim Kress <jim### [at] dccmail com> wrote:
>That's a REALLY GOOD IDEA! Who would be willing to do that? Ken? Ron
>Parker? Warp?
Not me. I barely understand media myself, having never had a need
for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Kress wrote:
> That's a REALLY GOOD IDEA! Who would be willing to do that? Ken? Ron
> Parker? Warp?
Not me. I barely understand media myself, having never had a needfor it.
> We could even include a reference to them in the VFAQ.
Dig, dig, dig...
> Jim
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, that'll be the last one. I don't want to offend anyone.
Also, who would be a good choice since it's not Ron and not Ken? I'd love
to learn more about media since I have some real, practical uses for it.
--
Jim
Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
and provide scientific insights beyond compare!
Be sure to read the Warp maintained POV VFAQ:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ.html
Ken wrote in message <369F9BF3.6DA2EB61@pacbell.net>...
>Jim Kress wrote:
>
>> That's a REALLY GOOD IDEA! Who would be willing to do that? Ken? Ron
>> Parker? Warp?
>
>Not me. I barely understand media myself, having never had a needfor it.
>
>> We could even include a reference to them in the VFAQ.
>
>Dig, dig, dig...
>
>> Jim
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
> Media for atmosphere is confounding me.
> The old way was so much better it seems to me now.
> Anyone get a reasonable, and useable, atmospheric media working for
> various situations? I.e., different camera/object distances and number
> of lights so when you make a new scene the media (as used for
> atmosphere) doesn't wreak havoc while adjusting it endlessly?
> I was taming the POV-Ray 3.0* 'atmosphere' fairly well until I moved
> along to the 3.1 chaos.
> Just curious how others are doing so far, and if there is any logic to
> it which I might have overlooked.
> I understand the basic scaling syndrome of keeping media density in sync
> with container objects, but I've been lost too many times trying the
> containerless "air", since each scene is not the same as the last.
> Well, I'll quit complaining for now. Thanks in advance for any notions
> out there you all may have.
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> =Bob
Since I am the link master I would be remiss in my duties if
were unable to come up with some form of online information
to guide you through this difficult time. Please see the link below
http://members.xoom.com/POVRAY3/media1.html
and then say thank you Mike.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alas... I know poor Mike, through AOLs POV Chat, well. (Shakespearian,
don't ya think?)
I've long since seen and re-seen those tutorial pages and it's
unfortunate I can't make head nor tails of media even looking at other
examples. It keeps defying my sense of logic. I'm still thinking it's a
learning experience needed, halo and atmosphere in 3.0* was likewise, as
is anything.
From what I've been able to tell so far though 3.1 is not a perfect step
up, as media can be much slower to produce an equal smoothness it seems.
Well, not to be a whiner or anything, I just agree with many apparently
that a quick and versatile method of using media in it's variety of ways
has become a holy grail to seek out.
Color manipulation of media is, itself, like a whole new world.
Ken wrote:
>
> Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> > Media for atmosphere is confounding me.
> > The old way was so much better it seems to me now.
> > Anyone get a reasonable, and useable, atmospheric media working for
> > various situations? I.e., different camera/object distances and number
> > of lights so when you make a new scene the media (as used for
> > atmosphere) doesn't wreak havoc while adjusting it endlessly?
> > I was taming the POV-Ray 3.0* 'atmosphere' fairly well until I moved
> > along to the 3.1 chaos.
> > Just curious how others are doing so far, and if there is any logic to
> > it which I might have overlooked.
> > I understand the basic scaling syndrome of keeping media density in sync
> > with container objects, but I've been lost too many times trying the
> > containerless "air", since each scene is not the same as the last.
> > Well, I'll quit complaining for now. Thanks in advance for any notions
> > out there you all may have.
> >
> > --
> > omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> > http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> > =Bob
>
> Since I am the link master I would be remiss in my duties if
> were unable to come up with some form of online information
> to guide you through this difficult time. Please see the link below
>
> http://members.xoom.com/POVRAY3/media1.html
>
> and then say thank you Mike.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
