Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Thanks. Getting praise from a celebrity is very flattering.

  Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
"to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
might not actually mean what I wanted.

  What I wanted to say was, of course, that it's a great honor.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>   I think people too often dismiss normal perturbation tricks because they
> can't get them look good, and the reason is that they don't know how to
> use slope maps.

I have put much time into trying slope maps, and I just can't get them to
look right. I fully understand the idea, but specifying both the height and
the slope at a certain point takes too much tweaking. For instance, I'll
often start with a low point that has a high slope and then put a higher
point with a lower slope. In my head, I imagine a steep surface turning into
a more gradual one. What I end up getting is a steep line, followed by a
slight downward incline, going back up into a gradual slope. This is because
I made the first slope too steep and the second point too low.

I feel like it would be easier to either specify only the slope or only the
height at each point, and rely on some sort of simple smoothing (like a
spline) to get good values inbetween. Or else some sort of editor would be
useful.

So instead, I generally just use functions to create greyscale "height maps"
that I use as normals.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Thanks, Warp!

That actually helps a lot.  A simply-worded tutorial with spectacular
results like that would be nice to see in the documentation of future
POV-Ray releases.

-Randall

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   That type of wood texture is actually one of my best developed "tricks"
> with POV-Ray's procedural textures I have developed over the years. The
> idea is quite simple, yet effective:

What i found most stunning is the fact that it looks just as good as yours
from the Povray Fractal Contest, which is an isosurface actually!
http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/rendering/povfrac/final/0007.html

> - Apply the same turbulence and transformations as the pigment so that the
>   normal matches perfectly the pigment.

yes, matching pigments and normals are something i do frequently.   In fact,
rather than employing manual copy-and-paste, i find myself putting the same
definitions in a macro (function works too!) and calling it in the pigment
or normal, say:

#macro woddy() wood turbulence .1 scale 5*y rotate 5 warp { repeat x*2
offset 2 } #end

pigment { woody() color_map { cm1 } }
normal { woody() slope_map { sm1 } }

> - If you want to create wooden planks, average the above normal definition
>   with a gradient-patterned normal which uses a proper slope map.

hah!  It is indeed a good way to create tiny wooden nods and bumps in the
larger wood texture. :)

Post a reply to this message

Randall Sawyer <sra### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> That actually helps a lot.  A simply-worded tutorial with spectacular
> results like that would be nice to see in the documentation of future
> POV-Ray releases.

  The problem I see is that this is a tutorial on scene design, not on
using POV-Ray per se. In other words, it's a tutorial on how to compose
a scene which looks cool, and the tricks can be used on any renderer,
not just POV-Ray.
  The tutorials in the POV-Ray documentation are (and IMO should be)
about how to use POV-Ray itself and its features. Scene composition
is largely irrelevant in that context.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  The problem I see is that this is a tutorial on scene design, not on
> using POV-Ray per se. In other words, it's a tutorial on how to compose
> a scene which looks cool, and the tricks can be used on any renderer,
> not just POV-Ray.

Not fully. Due to the POV scene files included
it's very strongly POV related.

Then you might also delete sections of the POV
help about eg radiosity. I'd like to see such things
in teh POV documentation and there are already
similar tutorials in it.

Just my 2 cents.

Bye, Olaf.

Post a reply to this message

Olaf Doschke <b2x### [at] strconv14de> wrote:
> Then you might also delete sections of the POV
> help about eg radiosity.

  I don't see why. The radiosity tutorials and reference are very
POV-Ray specific and can't be transferred to other programs.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
> "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
> might not actually mean what I wanted.

For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering" 
isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the 
above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that 
dress flatters you" are all compliments.

And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of 
focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture 
sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it 
just me?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
> > "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
> > might not actually mean what I wanted.
>
> For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering"
> isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the
> above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that
> dress flatters you" are all compliments.
>
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it
> just me?
>


Stephen said sooking up to Darren :-)



Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:


Actually, thinking about it, I usually hear it used with husband/wife 
type relationships. If it's derogatory, you'd say they're a "kiss-a$$".

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message