Lance Birch heeft geschreven:
>Opacity and transparency are messures of the same thing... (not to be
>confused with transmission of course)  For example, you can give a texture
a
>transmission of 50%, and no matter how thick the object is, a certain
amount
>of light (50%) will always go through it... give it 5%, the object can be 1
>unit or 1000000 units thick and 5% of the light will still get through.

>What translucency does is affect the amount of light that can get through
>based on the ray depth and also changes the color of the object based on a
>density bias multiplier, applying this to the normal based surface
lighting.


That's what I meant with translucent is not glass clear (wrong choise of
words).

>The important thing to remember is that the translucency must be object
>surface normal independant to get the right effect... (only later is it
>applied to the surface normal dependant shader)...

So, an interior statement instead of finish?
(media, Mie-scattering, fade_distance, I'll give it a try)


>Did any one get that or did I just make it more confusing?

All clear.

ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.

Post a reply to this message

Yep, a media should be able to do it, but what I'm suggesting is that by
building it into the texture statement (whether it be in finish or whatever)
and having a specific translucency function, it can be made to be VERY fast.

The same goes for fluorescence...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> Yep, a media should be able to do it, but what I'm suggesting is that by
> building it into the texture statement (whether it be in finish or whatever)
> and having a specific translucency function, it can be made to be VERY fast.
> 
> The same goes for fluorescence...
> 
> --
> Lance.

  By your very definition it is not a propety of the surface. Therefore
it should be an interior funtion of the solid object and not a surface
property like pigments, finishes, and textures. It is contrary to the
model and the way Pov should treat behaviour like this. If it is to be
implemented let's do it correctly or not at all.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

OK then, sorry, I haven't kept up with Media and Interior and stuff like
that... so I wasn't sure what to put it in... (the last thing I played with
was a halo, which has been totally outdated).

OK, I guess it should interior then... and fluorescence in the finish
statement.

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

You talked about depth in your description.  A texture has no depth.  That is
why we moved IOR and media into the interior statement.

Dale (POV-Team)

Lance Birch wrote:

> Yep, a media should be able to do it, but what I'm suggesting is that by
> building it into the texture statement (whether it be in finish or whatever)
> and having a specific translucency function, it can be made to be VERY fast.
>
> The same goes for fluorescence...
>
> --
> Lance.
>
> ---
> For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
> The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, sorry about that... I haven't kept up with interior and media etc etc
and I didn't know where it should go...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

You talked of transmittance ('transmit'?) being 5% or 50% or 100%
regardless of thickness of the object having such. This doesn't appear
to be exactly true when considering different rgb values used. Well
known fact that 'filter 1' is 100% clear if used on 'rgb 1', and 100%
non transparent if 'filter 1' is used with 'rgb 0' instead.
However also 'transmit 0.5' of 'rgb 1' is clearer than if 'rgb 0' or so
it seems. So I'm not so sure of the true workings of these when
considering the "visible" appearances anyhow. I know it might have a lot
to do with the background object or texture seen through something like
this, but black has always obscured better than white whether filter or
transmit is used far as it looks to me.
Back to the translucent and fluorescent concepts. I do understand the
idea at least. A white wax candle stick is best for me to think of for
describing translucence. What is needed is the blurring of incoming
light and/or object textures as seen through or "into" it. I was
thinking of a highly diffusing normal in a texture which would
effectively scatter everything, and coupled with light fading. Of
course, I haven't checked this out yet.
Not saying I'm against your idea either, just so you know.
The fluorescence would be in need of a glow effect for sure if to be
done right at all (translucence actually glows too via outside light
sources). Emitting objects/textures I believe may have been assumed to
be covered by radiosity somewhat.
Well, I feel I'm just reiterating what's already been said.
All in all the answer probably is a media type thing all right, not
texture based. (Like I needed to write anything once again... heck)


Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> --
> Lance.
> 
> ---
> For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
> The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

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

Post a reply to this message