|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have been putting a perspective grid in my scene that floats just clear of
the floor.
I use it as a visual measuring tool in the final image.
Currently I have used a grid composed of small cylinders but find that the
processing time is substantial and I am looking for an alternate idea.
Has anybody made a similar grid?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Vincent-Jones wrote:
>
> I have been putting a perspective grid in my scene that floats just clear of
> the floor.
> I use it as a visual measuring tool in the final image.
> Currently I have used a grid composed of small cylinders but find that the
> processing time is substantial and I am looking for an alternate idea.
> Has anybody made a similar grid?
You might try a crossing gradient on a very thin box instead.
Something untested like this:
box { -1,1
texture {
pigment { gradient x
color_map {
[.45 rgbf 1][.45 rgb 1][.55 rgb 1][.55 rgbf 1]
}
scale .1
}
finish { ambient 1 diffuse 0 }
}
texture {
pigment { gradient z
color_map {
[.45 rgbf 1][.45 rgb 1][.55 rgb 1][.55 rgbf 1]
}
scale .1
}
finish { ambient 1.5 diffuse 0 }
}
scale <20,.1,20>
}
--
Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Vincent-Jones wrote:
>
> I have been putting a perspective grid in my scene that floats just clear of
> the floor.
> I use it as a visual measuring tool in the final image.
> Currently I have used a grid composed of small cylinders but find that the
> processing time is substantial and I am looking for an alternate idea.
> Has anybody made a similar grid?
I haven't, but if I were to do one, I'd use a plane with a gradient
layered texture, like:
texture {
pigment {
gradient x
pigment_map {
[ 0.9 color rgbf 0 transmit 1 ]
[ 0.9 color Blue ]
}
}
}
texture {
pigment {
gradient z
color_map {
[ 0.9 color rgbf 0 transmit 1 ]
[ 0.9 color Blue ]
}
}
}
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jerome M. BERGER" wrote:
> I haven't, but if I were to do one, I'd use a plane with a gradient
> layered texture, like:
I would recommend a thin box instead of a plane because the bounding is more
efficient and they render faster.
--
Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> "Jerome M. BERGER" wrote:
>
> > I haven't, but if I were to do one, I'd use a plane with a gradient
> > layered texture, like:
>
> I would recommend a thin box instead of a plane because the bounding is more
> efficient and they render faster.
>
You're right, but then I would use a very *thick* hollow box instead
(btw the plane should be hollow too). It should be thick enough so that
the bottom edge is below everything in the scene. A thin box would
increase the trace level (and therefore the render time) a lot...
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:24:15 -0800, "Jerome M. BERGER"
<jbe### [at] enstfr> wrote:
> You're right, but then I would use a very *thick* hollow box instead
>(btw the plane should be hollow too). It should be thick enough so that
>the bottom edge is below everything in the scene. A thin box would
>increase the trace level (and therefore the render time) a lot...
>
> Jerome
Not if the thickness is 0, like box { <-1000,0,-1000>, <1000,0,1000> }
which, though odd, is perfectly legal.
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:24:15 -0800, "Jerome M. BERGER"
> <jbe### [at] enstfr> wrote:
>
> > You're right, but then I would use a very *thick* hollow box instead
> >(btw the plane should be hollow too). It should be thick enough so that
> >the bottom edge is below everything in the scene. A thin box would
> >increase the trace level (and therefore the render time) a lot...
> >
> > Jerome
>
> Not if the thickness is 0, like box { <-1000,0,-1000>, <1000,0,1000> }
> which, though odd, is perfectly legal.
Thanks Peter, I was just going to bring that up. It basicaly will make a box
with a thickness the same as a triangle or a disk object.
--
Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> Not if the thickness is 0, like box { <-1000,0,-1000>, <1000,0,1000> }
> which, though odd, is perfectly legal.
>
I didn't know you could do that... Doesn't it raise coincident surface
problems, though? Or does POV handle it in a specific way?
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jerome M. BERGER" wrote:
>
> Peter Popov wrote:
> >
> > Not if the thickness is 0, like box { <-1000,0,-1000>, <1000,0,1000> }
> > which, though odd, is perfectly legal.
> >
> I didn't know you could do that... Doesn't it raise coincident surface
> problems, though? Or does POV handle it in a specific way?
>
> Jerome
It handles it just like a triangle with no problems with coincident surfaces.
Renders much faster than a plane does too. Try it you'll like it :)
--
Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:19:13 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>> Not if the thickness is 0, like box { <-1000,0,-1000>, <1000,0,1000> }
>> which, though odd, is perfectly legal.
>
>Thanks Peter, I was just going to bring that up. It basicaly will make a box
>with a thickness the same as a triangle or a disk object.
Actually it was you who taught me this, so thank you too :)
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|