Margus Ramst schrieb in Nachricht <36ceba21.0@news.povray.org>...

>If you mean an image with a Pratchett theme, there was one in the "magic"
>round of the IRTC. I don't know of any images of the entire Discworld,
>though. Maybe somebdy will risk copyright infringement again and does it
for
>this round...

What exactly do you mean by "copyright infringement _again_"?

--
Rudy Velthuis

Post a reply to this message

Rudy Velthuis wrote in message <36cf10c2.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>What exactly do you mean by "copyright infringement _again_"?
>
I mean _risk_ again. Like putting Mickey Mouse or Coke in your image. If you
haven't done so, check out "usage of commercial logos" thread in
irtc.general.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Let me just say that you may want to check out my photon mapping patch once
I make a public beta available.

-Nathan Kopp

Post a reply to this message

I don't think there's a POVer alive who wouldn't want to check it out. Now
stop teasing!

Margus

Nathan Kopp wrote in message <36CF1BDD.6F08F75C@Kopp.com>...
>Let me just say that you may want to check out my photon mapping patch once
>I make a public beta available.
>
>-Nathan Kopp

Post a reply to this message

I've always used a cupped palm to focus dim light into a spot I needed
to see, don't know where I got this from but it's like placing your hand
above your eyes in bright light to shade your eyes as a reflex almost.
Similar thing occurs when you block a light from a shadowy place your
trying to see to adjust your eyes to the darkness there.
Sorry, I wouldn't be much help with that much of a "capture reality"
rendering, especially if you think it might take a lifetime and a cray.
And, hey, I'm both American and *semi*-metric, if that counts for
anything.


Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> The fun really began when I moved my hand (probably to rub
> my eyes :) ) and the ray bounced off it and lit half the room! I never
> knew that human skin was so much diffusely reflective. The mere two or
> three square inches of my palm that were lit by the sun acted as a
> real light source, producing nice shadows
> 
> Now the question is, how the heck do I model all that in just a
> lifetime? And how many Cray supercomputers will I need to render it?
> 
> Any help appreciated.
> 
> --Peter
> 
> P.S. Based on the still going "Where are you..." thread, most of you
> guys are Americans, so I did some conversions to spare the majority
> the trouble to do so. 1 in = 2.5402 cm  1 cm =  0.3937 in :)

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:

> And, hey, I'm both American and *semi*-metric, if that counts for anything.

I got a set of them "metric" wrenches once. That metric company needs
to improve their product. The darn things were just too sloppy and
rounded the corners on the hex nuts. Your not assiociated with them
by any chance are you ? I want my money back !

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:32:29 -0500, Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:

>Let me just say that you may want to check out my photon mapping patch once
>I make a public beta available.
>
>-Nathan Kopp

Of course I will! After all, it was because you beat me to it that I
gave up doing my virtual light sources patch. You mentioned once that
you implemented faked (not using real wavelengths, of coz) dispersion
in your patch. That's nice. Now the question is, what amound of
photons do I have to shoot from the sun so that a reasonable number of
them passes through a 1 inch wide slit, hits my palm and illuminates
the room with radiosity, caustics and dispersion at that? Maybe you
should incorporate some way to explicitly specify higher concentration
of the photons where they are needed.

Peter
---------
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> >
> >-Nathan Kopp
> 
 Maybe you
> should incorporate some way to explicitly specify higher concentration
> of the photons where they are needed.
> 
> Peter

light_source{ location  [type modifiers]}

Light Modifiers Available:

Sun, Moon, Star, Candle, Gas_Lamp, Halogen, Halogen_Quartz, Arc_Lamp,
Laser, Sodium_Vapor, Mercury_Vapor, Argon_Gas, Metal_Halide, Zenon,
Neon, Incandescent, Flourecent, Bio_Luminescent, Ultra_Violet,
Infra_Red, Light_Emitting_Semi_Conductor_Junction, Thermo_Nuclear,
and Super_Nova.

Note: The last two entries are difficult to control and are for the more
      advanced users only.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Of course I will! After all, it was because you beat me to it that I
> gave up doing my virtual light sources patch. You mentioned once that
> you implemented faked (not using real wavelengths, of coz) dispersion
> in your patch. That's nice. Now the question is, what amound of
> photons do I have to shoot from the sun so that a reasonable number of
> them passes through a 1 inch wide slit, hits my palm and illuminates
> the room with radiosity, caustics and dispersion at that? Maybe you
> should incorporate some way to explicitly specify higher concentration
> of the photons where they are needed.
> 

Yes.  In fact, all photons are shot at specific objects (at a specified
density for each object) instead of everywhere.

Unfortunately, (at least the first version of) this photon mapping
implementation will not directly impact radiosity.  In other words, if
radiosity wouldn't light up the room from a small highly-ambient spot,
then it won't light up the room from a small photon-lit spot.  Photons
will get the light through the slit, off all the specular-reflective
surfaces, and to your hand, but no further (for now).

Photon mapping will NOT replace radiosity (I thought it would, but I
tried it and it didn't work very well).

-Nathan Kopp

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst schrieb in Nachricht <36cf1a2e.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Rudy Velthuis wrote in message <36cf10c2.0@news.povray.org>...
>>
>>What exactly do you mean by "copyright infringement _again_"?
>>
>I mean _risk_ again. Like putting Mickey Mouse or Coke in your image. If
you
>haven't done so, check out "usage of commercial logos" thread in
>irtc.general.

OIC, I didn't subscribe to irtc.general yet (I'm not good enough to do
anything for the IRTC <sigh>), so I hadn't heard about copyright problems.
Thanks for the pointer and the explanation.

--
Rudy Velthuis

Post a reply to this message