Hi all!!

Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to learn
Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I haven't found
a texture generator as Pov texture generator. When you jump to programs like
Blender (or 3dS) you are supposed to PAINT almost all the textures you use if
you want them to look right through UV maps.

It is incredible that they didnt put any effort in the developement of a good
texture generator. It is not obvious, for instance, to do a texture map. To put
a standard texture inside another pattern. So, as I have said, you have to use
UV maps or images to texture your Blender models.

It is true that this feature (UV mapping) is easy to use and very well inserted.
But I miss Pov procedurals. I miss them so much that I still use Pov to paint my
textures!!! and then I introduce them into blender as images.

So finally (thanks God) I'm not going to loose my connection with Pov.

Thanks!!!

---------------------
www.enriquesahagun.es

Post a reply to this message

"kike" <dry### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Hi all!!
>
> Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to learn
> Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I haven't found
> a texture generator as Pov texture generator. When you jump to programs like
> Blender (or 3dS) you are supposed to PAINT almost all the textures you use if
> you want them to look right through UV maps.
>
> It is incredible that they didnt put any effort in the developement of a good
> texture generator. It is not obvious, for instance, to do a texture map. To put
> a standard texture inside another pattern. So, as I have said, you have to use
> UV maps or images to texture your Blender models.
>
> It is true that this feature (UV mapping) is easy to use and very well inserted.
> But I miss Pov procedurals. I miss them so much that I still use Pov to paint my
> textures!!! and then I introduce them into blender as images.
>
> So finally (thanks God) I'm not going to loose my connection with Pov.
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> ---------------------
> www.enriquesahagun.es

This is not quite right.  Perhaps you are just still very green and missing
functionality in the UI.  Procedurals in Blender are about as powerful than in
Povray, except you enter color/texture lists with very practical dragging
controls.

F5 to access the materials panels for an object.  You'll see a Texture/Map
Input/Map To grouping near the end of the panel.  With Texture you can stack
texture maps with several layers.  With Map Input, you can scale and do various
transforms for any of the selected layers.  With Map To, you can adjust
individual features of each layer, like pigment (color), normal, specular,
alpha, warps and the kind of mixing that goes into it with the subsequent
layers (subtract, add, multiply, light etc).

F6 access the "texture" panels.  In it, you may define each layer per se:  the
pattern type, turbulence type, noise type and color list.

The F5 panels still feature a very handy Shaders/Mirror Trans/SSS grouping that
allow you to further define the appearence, including choices of shading models
(lambert, fresnel etc) and subsurface scattering effects.

Blender is a very complete and complex package, that's for sure.

Post a reply to this message

kike wrote:
> Hi all!!
> 
> Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to learn
> Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I haven't found
> a texture generator as Pov texture generator. When you jump to programs like
> Blender (or 3dS) you are supposed to PAINT almost all the textures you use if
> you want them to look right through UV maps.
> 
> It is incredible that they didnt put any effort in the developement of a good
> texture generator. It is not obvious, for instance, to do a texture map. To put
> a standard texture inside another pattern. So, as I have said, you have to use
> UV maps or images to texture your Blender models.
> 
> It is true that this feature (UV mapping) is easy to use and very well inserted.
> But I miss Pov procedurals. I miss them so much that I still use Pov to paint my
> textures!!! and then I introduce them into blender as images.
> 
> So finally (thanks God) I'm not going to loose my connection with Pov.
> 
> Thanks!!!
> 
> ---------------------
> www.enriquesahagun.es
> 
> 

You might want check out Wings3D: www.wings3d.com  It comes with a 
fairly good POVRAY exporter built in...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> "kike" <dry### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to learn
>> Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I haven't found
>> a texture generator as Pov texture generator.
> 
> This is not quite right.  Perhaps you are just still very green and missing
> functionality in the UI.  Procedurals in Blender are about as powerful than in
> Povray, except you enter color/texture lists with very practical dragging
> controls.

"Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere near 
as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own 
shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system may 
start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.

Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and the 
node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things I can 
easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible to do in 
Blender.

At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things. In 
POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great for 
science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have 
radiosity in your scene, etc. In Blender you can render hair, SSS, make 
games (the new GLSL stuff is really cool), etc. It's nice to have more 
than one tool at your disposal before embarking on a project. Now, if I 
could just find inspiration....

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> "kike" <dry### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to 
>>> learn
>>> Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I 
>>> haven't found
>>> a texture generator as Pov texture generator.
>>
>> This is not quite right.  Perhaps you are just still very green and 
>> missing
>> functionality in the UI.  Procedurals in Blender are about as powerful 
>> than in
>> Povray, except you enter color/texture lists with very practical dragging
>> controls.
> 
> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere near 
> as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own 
> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system may 
> start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.

Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level of 
functionality, and quite a few more features.

> Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and the 
> node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things I can 
> easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible to do in 
> Blender.

Is this a challenge? ;)

If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to 
reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)

> At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things. In 
> POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great for 
> science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have 
> radiosity in your scene, etc.

On a side note, Blender also has an internal radiosity engine, along 
with a raytracer.

> Now, if I 
> could just find inspiration....

Oh, come on!  Even uninspired, you're an inspiration to all of us! :D

Post a reply to this message

Jeff Houck <jho### [at] northrimnet> wrote:
> kike wrote:
> > Hi all!!
> >
> > Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to learn
> > Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I haven't found
> > a texture generator as Pov texture generator. When you jump to programs like
> > Blender (or 3dS) you are supposed to PAINT almost all the textures you use if
> > you want them to look right through UV maps.
> >
> > It is incredible that they didnt put any effort in the developement of a good
> > texture generator. It is not obvious, for instance, to do a texture map. To put
> > a standard texture inside another pattern. So, as I have said, you have to use
> > UV maps or images to texture your Blender models.
> >
> > It is true that this feature (UV mapping) is easy to use and very well inserted.
> > But I miss Pov procedurals. I miss them so much that I still use Pov to paint my
> > textures!!! and then I introduce them into blender as images.
> >
> > So finally (thanks God) I'm not going to loose my connection with Pov.
> >
> > Thanks!!!
> >
> > ---------------------
> > www.enriquesahagun.es
> >
> >
>
> You might want check out Wings3D: www.wings3d.com  It comes with a
> fairly good POVRAY exporter built in...

Modeling Program: you know how you use it, only if you wrote it; at least for
some time. And so much time to develop, even if you wrote it, takes some effort
to remember what you did.

Blender is the best importer I've seen, almost everything but pov mesh. Then
export to obj and open with PoseRay, what a Gem PoseRay is!

As for modeling with POV, I know I have more possibilities to explore yet feel
modeling programs to be unnecessary at this point, CSG. For modeling human form
we all should have been able to afford hover cars by now, let alone 3D scanners,
but noooooo$, greed has to make it this way.

Post a reply to this message

Ok, Ok, OK, wait a minute:

I'm not saying Blender is not good. Actually I'm learning to use blender because
I wanted to do things I can not do with Pov. In particular those things
connected with mesh and animations, in which Blender is quite powerful. In fact
I'm very grateful to Blender, I'm still astonished with the million things you
can do with it.

And in particular, textures are very powerful in Blender. But in my opinion, not
as powerful as in PovRay. It is true that you can do very interesting things in
the textures section. BUT THERE IS AN OBVIOUS THING you can do in Pov which is
not obvious in Blender. To set textures inside textures. For instance to set a
crackle texture inside a bozo texture in such a way that there is crackle only
in the bozo spots.

When you want to design complex textures in Pov, you have lots of possibilities.
I can make a list of the things I miss:

- Bricks, hexagons
- texture maps (texture INSIDE textures, not textures OVER textures)
- the way you control the noise in your textures (turbulence, wrap, lambda,
omega, etc

When you want complex textures in Blender, it is better to paint it (or to get a
photograph, OR TO USE POV!!! JAJAJA) Obviously, I would be able to make a
similar list about the things that are better in Blender, but that is another
story.


---------------------------
www.enriquesahagun.es

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> stbenge escreveu:
>> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere 
>> near as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own 
>> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system 
>> may start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.
> 
> Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level of 
> functionality, and quite a few more features.

More features like ambient occlusion, angle of incidence shaders and 
other mapping features... yes. But as kike mentioned, you can't place 
textures inside of textures. POV-Ray also has other pattern modifiers 
which make life much easier....

>> Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and the 
>> node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things I can 
>> easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible to do 
>> in Blender.
> 
> Is this a challenge? ;)

If you want it to be :)

> If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to 
> reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)

Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now 
in POV:

// Code
// render with +w500 +h500

global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}

#default{finish{ambient 1}}

camera{
  orthographic
  right x*2 up y*2
  location -z*100 look_at 0
}

#declare native_motif=
pigment{
  gradient y triangle_wave
  #declare V=0;
  #while(V<1)
   translate y*.75
   rotate z*45.2
   //rotate -z*45.1
   scale .98
   warp{repeat x*5 flip x}
   #declare V=V+1/100;
  #end
  scale .1
}

plane{z,-1
  pigment{
   native_motif
   color_map{[0 rgb 0][.5 rgb<.5,.3,.1>][1 rgb 1]}
  }
}

// End Code

>> At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things. 
>> In POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great 
>> for science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have 
>> radiosity in your scene, etc.
> 
> On a side note, Blender also has an internal radiosity engine, along 
> with a raytracer.

AFAIK, Blender only has ambient occlusion built in to its renderer. You 
can color your object based on a sky texture (which actually looks 
pretty good), but it's not true radiosity. There is built-in support for 
YAFRay, but (with the new releases of Blender) it has become difficult 
to use, as you get no preview of the image as it renders. Plus YAFRay 
doesn't support all of Blender's rendering options and materials... I 
find using YAFRay a pain in the @ss, and usually opt to use POV-Ray if I 
need radiosity.

>> Now, if I could just find inspiration....
> 
> Oh, come on!  Even uninspired, you're an inspiration to all of us! :D

Thanks :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

stbenge wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> stbenge escreveu:
>>> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere
>>> near as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own
>>> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system
>>> may start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.
>>
>> Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level
>> of functionality, and quite a few more features.
> 
> More features like ambient occlusion, angle of incidence shaders and
> other mapping features... yes. But as kike mentioned, you can't place
> textures inside of textures. POV-Ray also has other pattern modifiers
> which make life much easier....
> 
>>> Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and
>>> the node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things
>>> I can easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible
>>> to do in Blender.
>>
>> Is this a challenge? ;)
> 
> If you want it to be :)
> 
>> If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to
>> reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)
> 
> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now
> in POV:
> 
> // Code
> // render with +w500 +h500
> 
> global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}
> 
> #default{finish{ambient 1}}
> 
> camera{
>  orthographic
>  right x*2 up y*2
>  location -z*100 look_at 0
> }
> 
> #declare native_motif=
> pigment{
>  gradient y triangle_wave
>  #declare V=0;
>  #while(V<1)
>   translate y*.75
>   rotate z*45.2
>   //rotate -z*45.1
>   scale .98
>   warp{repeat x*5 flip x}
>   #declare V=V+1/100;
>  #end
>  scale .1
> }
> 
> plane{z,-1
>  pigment{
>   native_motif
>   color_map{[0 rgb 0][.5 rgb<.5,.3,.1>][1 rgb 1]}
>  }
> }
> 
> // End Code
> 
>>> At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things.
>>> In POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great
>>> for science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have
>>> radiosity in your scene, etc.
>>
>> On a side note, Blender also has an internal radiosity engine, along
>> with a raytracer.
> 
> AFAIK, Blender only has ambient occlusion built in to its renderer. You
> can color your object based on a sky texture (which actually looks
> pretty good), but it's not true radiosity.

	Actually, Blender has "true" radiosity in that it uses the actual
radiosity algorithm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity which is
"a finite elements method to solving the rendering equation". Povray
doesn't, what pov calls "radiosity" is actually a Monte Carlo
approach for global illumination ("global illumination" and
radiosity are often confused).

	However, Blender radiosity is pretty difficult to use and get good
results with...

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkA1UIACgkQd0kWM4JG3k9K2QCfT1RNWbKVRsaoinA0mgfq2Jix
LQYAn0Ij27W5LEmWSFX8jJH2qef3fH/X
=lxwS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

stbenge escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> stbenge escreveu:
>>> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere 
>>> near as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own 
>>> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system 
>>> may start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.
>>
>> Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level 
>> of functionality, and quite a few more features.
> 
> More features like ambient occlusion, angle of incidence shaders and 
> other mapping features... yes. But as kike mentioned, you can't place 
> textures inside of textures. POV-Ray also has other pattern modifiers 
> which make life much easier....

>>> I can easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible 
>>> to do in Blender.
>>
>> Is this a challenge? ;)
> 
> If you want it to be :)

Shouldn't have asked... :P

>> If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to 
>> reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)
> 
> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now 
> in POV:
> 
> // Code
> // render with +w500 +h500
> 
> global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}
> 
> #default{finish{ambient 1}}
> 
> camera{
>  orthographic
>  right x*2 up y*2
>  location -z*100 look_at 0
> }
> 
> #declare native_motif=
> pigment{
>  gradient y triangle_wave
>  #declare V=0;
>  #while(V<1)
>   translate y*.75
>   rotate z*45.2
>   //rotate -z*45.1
>   scale .98
>   warp{repeat x*5 flip x}
>   #declare V=V+1/100;
>  #end
>  scale .1
> }
> 
> plane{z,-1
>  pigment{
>   native_motif
>   color_map{[0 rgb 0][.5 rgb<.5,.3,.1>][1 rgb 1]}
>  }
> }
> 
> // End Code

Tapestry!  yes, no way of doing that in Blender alone, particularly as 
it employs a loop to define further iterations to the warps... I could 
try to manually do those transforms, or perhaps learn how to script it 
with python... :/

>> On a side note, Blender also has an internal radiosity engine, along 
>> with a raytracer.
> 
> AFAIK, Blender only has ambient occlusion built in to its renderer. You 
> can color your object based on a sky texture (which actually looks 
> pretty good), but it's not true radiosity.

I'll do a test at home, but I'm pretty sure the tools in the Radio 
panels mean true radiosity baking.  They are separate from the occlusion 
pass.

> There is built-in support for 
> YAFRay, but (with the new releases of Blender) it has become difficult 
> to use, as you get no preview of the image as it renders. Plus YAFRay 
> doesn't support all of Blender's rendering options and materials... I 
> find using YAFRay a pain in the @ss, and usually opt to use POV-Ray if I 
> need radiosity.

Blender's internal renderer is becoming better and better.  It features 
a mix of scanline and raytracing, plus the ambient occlusion pass and 
radiosity.  I think only photon mapping and media are missing.  In the 
galleries, many incredible images are rendered internally...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> stbenge escreveu:
> 
> Tapestry!  yes, no way of doing that in Blender alone, particularly as 
> it employs a loop to define further iterations to the warps... I could 
> try to manually do those transforms, or perhaps learn how to script it 
> with python... :/

Are you backing down from the challenge? :)

I find myself using loops for patterns all the time, as it's one of the 
ways to add a great deal of complexity to them.

>>> On a side note, Blender also has an internal radiosity engine, along 
>>> with a raytracer.
>>
>> AFAIK, Blender only has ambient occlusion built in to its renderer. 
>> You can color your object based on a sky texture (which actually looks 
>> pretty good), but it's not true radiosity.
> 
> I'll do a test at home, but I'm pretty sure the tools in the Radio 
> panels mean true radiosity baking.  They are separate from the occlusion 
> pass.

You and Jerome are absolutely right; I forgot all about Blender's 
ability to bake radiosity into objects. I don't ever use this feature, 
as it difficult to use and not very dynamic. You have to re-bake all the 
objects if you want to change something. It's a nice feature to have 
though, since you can precompute the radiosity for games and animations.

>> There is built-in support for YAFRay, but (with the new releases of 
>> Blender) it has become difficult to use, as you get no preview of the 
>> image as it renders. Plus YAFRay doesn't support all of Blender's 
>> rendering options and materials... I find using YAFRay a pain in the 
>> @ss, and usually opt to use POV-Ray if I need radiosity.
> 
> Blender's internal renderer is becoming better and better.  It features 
> a mix of scanline and raytracing, plus the ambient occlusion pass and 
> radiosity.  I think only photon mapping and media are missing.  In the 
> galleries, many incredible images are rendered internally...

I agree with you on all points. Blender is coming along quite nicely, to 
be sure. It looks like a kind of media will be available soon (it 
already is for certain test builds), and radiosity will also be 
available in the form of "light cuts," a technique which tends to look 
rather nice and is almost indistinguishable from true radiosity.

As it stands now, Blender's ambient occlusion+environment-based lighting 
works very well. If the sky texture has a bright spot for a "light 
source," it will actually cause objects to cast shadows.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Wow, this is really nice. And each time I change some parameters, I get 
something different but also beautiful. Thanks for sharing this.

Thibaut



> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now 
> in POV:
> 
> // Code
> // render with +w500 +h500
> 
> global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}
> 
> #default{finish{ambient 1}}
> 
> camera{
>  orthographic
>  right x*2 up y*2
>  location -z*100 look_at 0
> }
> 
> #declare native_motif=
> pigment{
>  gradient y triangle_wave
>  #declare V=0;
>  #while(V<1)
>   translate y*.75
>   rotate z*45.2
>   //rotate -z*45.1
>   scale .98
>   warp{repeat x*5 flip x}
>   #declare V=V+1/100;
>  #end
>  scale .1
> }
> 
> plane{z,-1
>  pigment{
>   native_motif
>   color_map{[0 rgb 0][.5 rgb<.5,.3,.1>][1 rgb 1]}
>  }
> }
> 
> // End Code
>

Post a reply to this message

Hey guys! I didnt wanted to start a war between Pov and Blender!!! It was just a
comment!! jejeje

I'm still learning how to use Blender (I started 6 months ago, compared with my
8 years on Pov is nothing!) But anyway, my conclusion is that both are good but
different. And that changing from Pov to Blender doesnt mean forgetting about
Pov, because in my opinion Pov is still better than Blender in some features.
Not only talking about quality but in terms of WHAT IS EASIER TO USE.

For instance, both programs work with focal blur, but Pov's is easier to
implement. Or motion blur (in MegaPov). I havent found this feature in Blender
(probably it exists).

----------------------------------
www.enriquesahagun.es

Post a reply to this message

stbenge escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> stbenge escreveu:
>>
>> Tapestry!  yes, no way of doing that in Blender alone, particularly as 
>> it employs a loop to define further iterations to the warps... I could 
>> try to manually do those transforms, or perhaps learn how to script it 
>> with python... :/
> 
> Are you backing down from the challenge? :)

I'm afraid so.  Very, very afraid. :P

that tapestry texture is amazing.  I'm also reminded of Jaime's
ceramic tiles macro that do it with function patterns:

http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=Ceramic_Tiles

Yes, Blender's procedurals still have a long way until being as 
featureful as Pov's... if the GUI doesn't get in the way, that is... :P

Post a reply to this message

"stbenge" <THI### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4900cf68@news.povray.org...
>
> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now in 
> POV:
>

My goodness! *whipped up* you say?  I would have needed at couple of days at 
least...
I am deeply impressed. I could very well use these kind of patterns, and I 
shall... with due credit of course.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot escreveu:
> "stbenge" <THI### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4900cf68@news.povray.org...
>> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now in 
>> POV:
>>
> 
> My goodness! *whipped up* you say?

Yeah, true hackers are humble. :D

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "stbenge" <THI### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4900cf68@news.povray.org...
>> Ok, you asked for it! :) Here's a little pattern I whipped up just now in 
>> POV:
>>
> 
> My goodness! *whipped up* you say?  I would have needed at couple of days at 
> least...
> I am deeply impressed. I could very well use these kind of patterns, and I 
> shall... with due credit of course.
> 
> Thomas
> 

Oh no, don't get me wrong here. I whipped up a *variation* of a pattern 
I've been playing with for quite some time. Since the technique is well 
known to me, it didn't take long to arrive at the version I posted. I 
should have used better words :/

I got the idea from somebody who posted to p.b.i. a long time ago. The 
person made a sort of "rose window" pattern using loops and repeat 
warps. I tried it out, started tweaking some settings, and arrived at 
something fractaline. I don't think I ever posted my results... until 
yesterday.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Thibaut Jonckheere wrote:
> Wow, this is really nice. And each time I change some parameters, I get 
> something different but also beautiful. Thanks for sharing this.
> 
> Thibaut

You're welcome. I have had the idea for quite some time, but to post it 
must have slipped my mind :/

Sam

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> stbenge escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> stbenge escreveu:
>>>
>>> Tapestry!  yes, no way of doing that in Blender alone, particularly 
>>> as it employs a loop to define further iterations to the warps... I 
>>> could try to manually do those transforms, or perhaps learn how to 
>>> script it with python... :/
>>
>> Are you backing down from the challenge? :)
> 
> I'm afraid so.  Very, very afraid. :P

Well, I won't hold you to it ;) We can't go on comparing corundums to 
tourmalines :)

> that tapestry texture is amazing.  I'm also reminded of Jaime's
> ceramic tiles macro that do it with function patterns:
> 
> http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=Ceramic_Tiles

I remember doing something like this a long, long time ago. I think 
Jaime took it further than I did. Looks neat :)

> Yes, Blender's procedurals still have a long way until being as 
> featureful as Pov's... if the GUI doesn't get in the way, that is... :P

Everything hinges on that darned GUI! The developers have to find ways 
to incorporate new features into the program without making the GUI a 
difficult monstrosity to contend with. More procedurals would be nice, 
and wouldn't add unnecessary clutter.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

kike wrote:
> Hey guys! I didnt wanted to start a war between Pov and Blender!!! It was just a
> comment!! jejeje

There is no war! There's only mutual distrust ;)

> I'm still learning how to use Blender (I started 6 months ago, compared with my
> 8 years on Pov is nothing!) But anyway, my conclusion is that both are good but
> different. And that changing from Pov to Blender doesnt mean forgetting about
> Pov, because in my opinion Pov is still better than Blender in some features.
> Not only talking about quality but in terms of WHAT IS EASIER TO USE.

This makes sense. I can't see anyone abandoning POV-Ray altogether. 
POV-Ray's usefulness goes beyond any other program in existence, IMO. It 
will always be one of my favorite tools; it won't be leaving my tool bag 
any time soon :)

> For instance, both programs work with focal blur, but Pov's is easier to
> implement. Or motion blur (in MegaPov). I havent found this feature in Blender
> (probably it exists).

Here's how to get motion blur in Blender. You need to go to 
Scene(F10)>Render>and press the MBLUR button. Motion blur won't work 
unless you have animated elements in your scene (obviously). You may 
need to go ahead a few frames to see the effects fully. OSA samples 
equals motion blur samples. It's all fairly straightforward once you 
know where to look.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am deeply impressed. I could very well use these kind of patterns, and I
> shall... with due credit of course.

Seconded. The one thing that code is missing is an explicit copyright and
license :D

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>    #declare V=V+1/100;

Do you often use fractional loop counters?

Lovely pattern.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky wrote:
> stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>    #declare V=V+1/100;
> 
> Do you often use fractional loop counters?

Yes, that's my automatic way of laying out a loop. I do this because 
variables which go from 0 to 1 are easier to implement in color_maps and 
sin/cos statements. It wasn't needed for this particular loop, but since 
POV-Ray treats all variables as floats, I can't see how it could harm 
things. I should have made it different so the code was easier to read, 
but like I said, I'm on automatic when writing code sometimes ;)

> Lovely pattern.

Thanks!

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> Yes, that's my automatic way of laying out a loop. I do this because
> variables which go from 0 to 1 are easier to implement in color_maps and
> sin/cos statements. It wasn't needed for this particular loop, but since
> POV-Ray treats all variables as floats, I can't see how it could harm
> things. I should have made it different so the code was easier to read,
> but like I said, I'm on automatic when writing code sometimes ;)

The problem with doing #declare V=V+1/100; is that it might not reach 1.0000
exactly at the end of the loop (because of floating point inaccuracies), so
it might run one time too many.

Since integers are accurate (unless they're really big), I personally do
this:
#declare I=0;
#declare V=0;
#while (I<100)
  //useful code
  #declare I=I+1;
  #declare V=I/100;
#end

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> The problem with doing #declare V=V+1/100; is that it might not reach
> 1.0000 exactly at the end of the loop (because of floating point
> inaccuracies), so it might run one time too many.

Or even if it runs runs the correct number of times, it may have slightly
off values. And errors would *accumulate*.

Tested in Python:
>>> x = 0;
>>> for i in range(0,100):
...     x += 1.0/100;
... 
>>> print x;
1.0000000000000007
>>>

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> The problem with doing #declare V=V+1/100; is that it might not reach
>> 1.0000 exactly at the end of the loop (because of floating point
>> inaccuracies), so it might run one time too many.
> 
> Or even if it runs runs the correct number of times, it may have slightly
> off values. And errors would *accumulate*.
>
> Tested in Python:
>>>> x = 0;
>>>> for i in range(0,100):
> ...     x += 1.0/100;
> ... 
>>>> print x;
> 1.0000000000000007

I see what you mean. I've never encountered any unwanted effects from 
using fractional number-dependent loops, but it's a good thing to keep 
in mind. Errors at the 16th decimal place are acceptable for most of the 
things I do, but there will probably come a time when your input saves 
me from beating my head against a hard surface :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> The problem with doing #declare V=V+1/100; is that it might not reach 1.0000
> exactly at the end of the loop (because of floating point inaccuracies), so
> it might run one time too many.
> 

Right. If you MUST use floats, more robust is this sort of thing:

#local xmin = ....;
#local xmax = ....;
#local dx = .....;

#local x = xmin;
#while (x < xmax + dx / 2)
   #local x = x + dx;
#end

Post a reply to this message

stbenge  wrote in message <49027f8c@news.povray.org>:
>								 but since 
> POV-Ray treats all variables as floats, I can't see how it could harm 
> things.

You mean, instead of using an integer counter? There is a big difference:
with most architectures, floats can represent reasonably-small integers in
an exact manner. On the other hand, 1/100 is not an exact float; 1/64 and
1/128 would have been, but not 1/100.

So the point that PoV internally uses floats is not valid: there are more
robust ways to use floats than others, and using an integer counter for
looks is one.

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> I see what you mean. I've never encountered any unwanted effects from
> using fractional number-dependent loops, but it's a good thing to keep
> in mind. Errors at the 16th decimal place are acceptable for most of the
> things I do, but there will probably come a time when your input saves
> me from beating my head against a hard surface :)

It's mainly relevant if you loop thousands of times. With 100 iterations
it's not a big problem :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez  wrote in message <4903699f@news.povray.org>:
> It's mainly relevant if you loop thousands of times. With 100 iterations
> it's not a big problem :)

Quite the contrary, with this code, there may be problems even for a very
small number of iterations.

For example, consider the following code:

#local n = 10;
#local t = 0;
#while(t < 1)
  #local t = t + 1/n;
#end

and the same with n = 11. It happens that the float value for 1/10 is
slightly smaller than the exact value 1/10, while the float value for 1/11
is slightly greater than the exact value for 1/11. The result is that both
loops make 11 iterations.

This issue can be fixed by using a float-friendly bound, as suggested
earlier by someone: t < 1 + dt / 2 or t < 1 - dt / 2, depending on whether
the loop is supposed to be inclusive or not.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George wrote:
> For example, consider the following code:
> 
> #local n = 10;
> #local t = 0;
> #while(t < 1)
>   #local t = t + 1/n;
> #end
> 

Well, t's a a reserved identifier, but otherwise....

If you change it count from 0 to "< 10" in increments of 1 (ie in integers), it's
fine.

Dan

Post a reply to this message

Dan Connelly wrote:
> If you change it count from 0 to "< 10" in increments of 1 (ie in
> integers), it's fine.

Yes, that's exactly the point. Use integers instead of floats.

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> #declare native_motif=
> pigment{
>   gradient y triangle_wave
>   #declare V=0;
>   #while(V<1)
>    translate y*.75
>    rotate z*45.2
>    //rotate -z*45.1
>    scale .98
>    warp{repeat x*5 flip x}
>    #declare V=V+1/100;
>   #end
>   scale .1
> }


I just want to say this is so much fun to play around with. Thanks for sharing
it.

Janet

Post a reply to this message

"Janet" <par### [at] attnet> wrote:

>
> I just want to say this is so much fun to play around with. Thanks for sharing
> it.
>

My mother would have given her eye teeth for a pattern generator like this. I
can see her using it for Fair Isle jumpers.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> My mother would have given her eye teeth for a pattern generator like this.

Now that you mention it, I think I've found the basis of a macro for my 
walk-thru castle's tapestries. :-)


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Janet wrote:
> 
> I just want to say this is so much fun to play around with. Thanks for sharing
> it.
> 
> Janet

Your welcome :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> "Janet" <par### [at] attnet> wrote:
> 
>> I just want to say this is so much fun to play around with. Thanks for sharing
>> it.
>>
> 
> My mother would have given her eye teeth for a pattern generator like this. I
> can see her using it for Fair Isle jumpers.
> 
> Stephen

Eye teeth? Are those little stones you put into your teeth? If so, I 
thought Kim Stanley Robinson came up with that...

Oh, I just remembered why I didn't post this pattern before. Your 
message reminded me that I once had plans to generate textile patterns 
with the hopes of selling them, using this generator. Oh well, maybe one 
of you can do it ;)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
> Eye teeth? Are those little stones you put into your teeth? If so, I
> thought Kim Stanley Robinson came up with that...
>

LOL, Your eye teeth are your canine teeth and those gem stones are an African
thing to show your wealth.

> Oh, I just remembered why I didn't post this pattern before. Your
> message reminded me that I once had plans to generate textile patterns
> with the hopes of selling them, using this generator. Oh well, maybe one
> of you can do it ;)
>
The best laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft a gley

Post a reply to this message

> // Code
> // render with +w500 +h500
>
> global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}
>
> #default{finish{ambient 1}}
>
> camera{
>   orthographic
>   right x*2 up y*2
>   location -z*100 look_at 0
> }
>
> #declare native_motif=
> pigment{
>   gradient y triangle_wave
>   #declare V=0;
>   #while(V<1)
>    translate y*.75
>    rotate z*45.2
>    //rotate -z*45.1
>    scale .98
>    warp{repeat x*5 flip x}
>    #declare V=V+1/100;
>   #end
>   scale .1
> }
>
> plane{z,-1
>   pigment{
>    native_motif
>    color_map{[0 rgb 0][.5 rgb<.5,.3,.1>][1 rgb 1]}
>   }
> }
>

This was exactly what I was talking about... well, I didnt expected something as
beautiful as this!!! it is incredible!!! Congratulations.

Well, at this point I have to say that I have discovered two promissing ways in
Blender to improve its not-so-good textures generator. One is to use nodes
(still dont know exactly what it is). The other way is that you can program
things in phyton, still dont know if you can program textures...

I will probably try with nodes, but I wont with Phyton. I have too many
programation languages in my head. Dont want another one!!!!

We'll always have PovRay!

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> Everything hinges on that darned GUI! The developers have to find ways 
> to incorporate new features into the program without making the GUI a 
> difficult monstrosity to contend with. More procedurals would be nice, 
> and wouldn't add unnecessary clutter.

OTOH, seems like Blender is getting node-based textures, so 
textures-inside-textures is now possible. :)

http://www.blendernation.com/2008/11/13/new-feature-in-development-texture-nodes/
http://www.blendernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/manual-part-iv-texture-node-example.png

I don't have a problem with Blender's GUI, but then, it's the only 3D 
editor I know.  What I like about it the most is all the keyboard 
shortcuts, so that I hardly use the mouse to do anything other then mesh 
editing.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote:
> OTOH, seems like Blender is getting node-based textures, so
> textures-inside-textures is now possible. :)

I think the node-based approach is very powerful, and can benefit more than just
shading. Some apps, such as Houdini or (recently, with ICE) XSI seem to take
full advantage of nodes in modelling, animation, compositing, the lot.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

"Tom York" <alp### [at] zubenelgenubi34spcom> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote:
> > OTOH, seems like Blender is getting node-based textures, so
> > textures-inside-textures is now possible. :)
>
> I think the node-based approach is very powerful, and can benefit more than just
> shading. Some apps, such as Houdini or (recently, with ICE) XSI seem to take
> full advantage of nodes in modelling, animation, compositing, the lot.

Yes.  Blender already had node-based materials and scene compositing.  Users are
demanding action nodes for animation as well.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> stbenge wrote:
>> Everything hinges on that darned GUI! The developers have to find ways 
>> to incorporate new features into the program without making the GUI a 
>> difficult monstrosity to contend with. More procedurals would be nice, 
>> and wouldn't add unnecessary clutter.
> 
> OTOH, seems like Blender is getting node-based textures, so 
> textures-inside-textures is now possible. :)
> 
> http://www.blendernation.com/2008/11/13/new-feature-in-development-texture-nodes/ 

I saw this yesterday, and was reminded of this thread :) It looks really 
cool, and should make Blender's texture system much more flexible. That 
Mandelbrot node setup was just insane, did you see that?

> I don't have a problem with Blender's GUI, but then, it's the only 3D 
> editor I know.  What I like about it the most is all the keyboard 
> shortcuts, so that I hardly use the mouse to do anything other then mesh 
> editing.

I like Blender's GUI, but seriously, I would not want to program one 
like it. The developers have done a good job so far, keeping things 
under the proper tabs, menus and window types. I agree with you about 
the keyboard shortcuts; they make life much easier. Sounds like you're 
farther into that than I am :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > stbenge wrote:
> >> Everything hinges on that darned GUI! The developers have to find ways
> >> to incorporate new features into the program without making the GUI a
> >> difficult monstrosity to contend with. More procedurals would be nice,
> >> and wouldn't add unnecessary clutter.
> >
> > OTOH, seems like Blender is getting node-based textures, so
> > textures-inside-textures is now possible. :)
> >
> > http://www.blendernation.com/2008/11/13/new-feature-in-development-texture-nodes/
>
> I saw this yesterday, and was reminded of this thread :) It looks really
> cool, and should make Blender's texture system much more flexible. That
> Mandelbrot node setup was just insane, did you see that?

Yes!  Should've linked to it instead!! O_o

> I like Blender's GUI, but seriously, I would not want to program one
> like it. The developers have done a good job so far, keeping things
> under the proper tabs, menus and window types.

I think it's one of the things that make it so light and portable.  I mean, the
whole thing being OpenGL.

> I agree with you about
> the keyboard shortcuts; they make life much easier. Sounds like you're
> farther into that than I am :)

It reminds me very much of the text editor vi.  All keys are command shortcuts.
:)

I decided to seriously learn it these past weeks.  I mean, learning about all
modelling mesh techiniques and Blender as well.  Right now, I'm not yet
concerned with full scenes, just sketches to learn to model, radiosity, AO and
all the different render passes and composition.  I'll soon post a complete
scene with my progress.  Visual mesh modelling is truly amazing. :)

Post a reply to this message