 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3993c4bd@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg>
wrote:
> But is this really a transformation? When you modify a function with
> another function, you just create a third function. There are no
> specific transformations involved.
> Yes, you can, for example, convert a cylinder-shaped isosurface into a
> cone-shaped isosurface. This is, however, done by actually creating
> another function, not by transforming.
You can use a function as a pattern in a pigment, use a warp(a
non-uniform transform) on that pigment, and then use that pigment in the
function for the final isosurface.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <399377e1@news.povray.org>, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:
> Ooooh... sounds like fun. :-) (Yes, I've seen the animations from the
> renderer that already does this.)
Animations? All I saw were stills...but that was a while ago, maybe the
animations were added since then.
> > - Custom BDRF functions
>
> Actually, this shouldn't be too far off as a MegaPov feature. (of course,
> post-3.5)
How would it be implemented? The only thing I can think of is a set of
splines specifying diffuse, specular reflection, etc. for the different
angles and overriding the ordinary finish settings. Basically, a new
finish model.
Of course, it would help if I knew something about BDRF functions. :-)
My knowledge of them is currently similar to my knowledge of shaders: I
know what they do, but I don't know the specifics of what they are like.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
> : BTW, this FAQ also talks about non-uniform transformations, saying they are only
> : possible in mesh modellers by moving the vertexes. Indded they are quite
> : possible in MegaPOV isosurfaces.
>
> Firstly: You can't modify an arbitrary object with an isosurface.
Wouldn't the proximity pattern allow such a thing?
OK, I know, it's not possible to give an example before 2050 because of
rendering times...
__ __ __ __ _
| | / \ / / |_ / |/
\/\/ \__/ /_ /_ |__ \_ |\
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39945B44.5BBE192C@club-internet.fr>, Francois Dispot
<woz### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
> Wouldn't the proximity pattern allow such a thing?
> OK, I know, it's not possible to give an example before 2050 because of
> rendering times...
The granularity would be a problem...but I am thinking of a way to add
per-object proximity functions, so some objects could have their own,
much computationally cheaper way of calculating proximity. The proximity
pattern might become useful in isosurfaces then...
My blob pattern isn't limited to blob components, it can also use boxes,
pigments, and other components are planned(torus, superellipsoid, etc.).
I have had good results with using it in isosurfaces.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Firstly: You can't modify an arbitrary object with an isosurface.
No. But with enough highly complicated pain-in-the-ass slow-calculating functions
almost any object can be translated into an isosurface...
> Secondly: Yes, you can modify an isosurface function with another function.
> But is this really a transformation? When you modify a function with another
> function, you just create a third function. There are no specific
> transformations involved.
> Yes, you can, for example, convert a cylinder-shaped isosurface into a
> cone-shaped isosurface. This is, however, done by actually creating another
> function, not by transforming.
> Of course it is possible to think that any transformations are possible
> for an isosurface if you like.
But isn't that the same thing? I mean, you could create a cylinder in POV and
transform it and really have POV be finding a new function, and get the same result.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine wrote:
> > - 5x faster rendering and parsing
>
> there is a solution for this right? getting a computer that is 5X
> faster :)
Ya know, if trends continue, we should have 16Ghz home PCs by 2006.
Although some say we are pushing the limits of what silicon-based chips
can take... (Fortunately we'll have copper-based and photonic chips soon
:) *crossing fingers*)
And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage capacity is
growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage capacity is
> growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
And the ability of Windoze to handle it is growing at the rate of
sqrt(x)...
But I'll be interested in that storage space when I get around to
making feature-length films. 90 minutes of 704x480 frames at 24fps
works out to over 130 GB.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
>
> David Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage capacity is
> > growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
>
> And the ability of Windoze to handle it is growing at the rate of
> sqrt(x)...
>
> But I'll be interested in that storage space when I get around to
> making feature-length films. 90 minutes of 704x480 frames at 24fps
> works out to over 130 GB.
Hmm, i guestimate 111 GB :) (900KB per frame .png average. Plus then
you need space to compress that on to. (And at least a couple of iterations
of test mpegs too...)
My new machine (coming next week, dual P3/933 pant pant) only has a 73GB SCSI.
I guess no feature films for me. :)
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dick Balaska wrote:
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
> >
> > David Fontaine wrote:
> > >
> > > And while processors are growing at a rate of 2^x, storage
> > > capacity is growing at a rate of 2^(2^x)!!!
> >
> > And the ability of Windoze to handle it is growing at the rate of
> > sqrt(x)...
> >
> > But I'll be interested in that storage space when I get around to
> > making feature-length films. 90 minutes of 704x480 frames at 24fps
> > works out to over 130 GB.
>
> Hmm, i guestimate 111 GB :) (900KB per frame .png average. Plus then
> you need space to compress that on to. (And at least a couple of
> iterations of test mpegs too...)
>
> My new machine (coming next week, dual P3/933 pant pant) only has a
> 73GB SCSI. I guess no feature films for me. :)
You can always zip down the png's. I was calculating based on
TGAs, which zip down to about 40% of original size.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3996F731.B984158D@erols.com> , John VanSickle
<van### [at] erolscom> wrote:
> You can always zip down the png's. I was calculating based on
> TGAs, which zip down to about 40% of original size.
The PNG image format already uses ZIP compression!
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
