 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Simon de Vet" <sde### [at] istar ca> wrote in message
news:Xns### [at] 204213191226...
> I was looking online for some good weathering references, and stumbled
> across something even more exciting - subsurface scattering.
>
> Subsurface scattering takes into account that many materials are slightly
> translucent. Marble allows some light to pass a very short distance, as
> does milk. Light hitting skin is not immediately reflected, but will
> penetrate a few layers, diffuse, and then travel towards the viewer. The
> examples I've seen are incredible. Such a small effect makes images
> massively more realistic.
>
I haven't taken a look yet, but it sounds like scattering media to me...
- Nekar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
["Nekar Xenos" <j-p### [at] citywalkcoza>]
| I haven't taken a look yet, but it sounds like scattering media to me...
You should take a look. You can't fake this using ordinary surfaces with
media beneath.
--
This message has not been scanned for viruses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'd like to see support for Mandelbrot and other complex and recursive functions
in isosurfaces.
- Nekar
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message
news:3b9069ed@news.povray.org...
> This has been advertised on this server many times before. Fascinating stuff
> that I hope will someday make it into 4.0... BTW, I have created a wish list
> of stuff I'd like in 4.0 - I'll append an editted-down version of it here.
>
> BSSRDF:-
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/bssrdf/
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/scatteringeqns/
> http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/stone/
> Blinn Shading:- see MegaPOV
> Support for RenderMan Shaders:- see POV-Man
> Blurred reflections and transparency:- see MegaPOV and Chris Huff's work
> Weathered Textures:-
> http://www.sciam.com/2000/0200issue/0200dorsey.html
> http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/weathering/
> http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/patina
> http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/wet_materials
> http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~dorsey/papers/flow/
> Smoke Simulation:- http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/smoke/
> Liquids Simulation:- http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/water/water.pdf
> Cloth Simulation:- a generalized solution should be developed from the work
> done so far
> Tesselation:- see Warp's patch
> Subdivision Surfaces:- see VanSickle's work, and how to hard-code it
> Non-linear transformations
> Mesh-->Patch conversion:-
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/surfacefitting/
> displacement-mapping:- http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/displace/
> NURBS
> Motion-blur:- see MegaPOV
> Post-processing:- teach POV to output extra data to be fed to a helper
> utility
> New focal blur solutions:- http://www.flarg.com/bokeh.html
> Better (?) radiosity:-
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/veach_thesis/
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/metro/
> Efficient Rendering of Scenes with Many Objects (Like Plants):-
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/ecosys/
> http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/coherentrt/
> Simple Bones / Inverse-Kinematics System
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos <j-p### [at] citywalkcoza> wrote:
: I'd like to see support for Mandelbrot and other complex and recursive functions
: in isosurfaces.
You can use a mandelbrot pattern in an isosurface.
However, recursive function calls will be disabled in 3.5 (don't ask me;
I was completely in favor of recursion).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
for prism_item, an "helicoidal_sweep"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about blob sweeps?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would like to see "rotate_to," that is, a function similar to point_at
or look_at, that would allow you to simply take any object and rotate it
so that it faces a given vector. I know this can be done with macros,
but having the keyword would be so much more elegant...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Dunn <poi### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: I would like to see "rotate_to," that is, a function similar to point_at
: or look_at, that would allow you to simply take any object and rotate it
: so that it faces a given vector. I know this can be done with macros,
: but having the keyword would be so much more elegant...
Why it would be more elegant?
And FYI, this will be a standard macro in 3.5.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why it would be more elegant?
> And FYI, this will be a standard macro in 3.5.
To your second point first, this is great news. Not having seen the beta, like
a lot of other people, I can only guess what macros are included. I was
thinking of elegance in terms of simplicity of use for the end user, not in
the sense that programmers sometimes use it. It seemed to me that an internal
keyword, based on point_at or look_at would simply be more intuitive while
coding than having to invoke a macro. But hey, I'll take the macro, gladly. :
)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Dunn wrote:
>
> Warp wrote:
>
> > Why it would be more elegant?
> > And FYI, this will be a standard macro in 3.5.
>
> To your second point first, this is great news. Not having seen the beta, like
> a lot of other people, I can only guess what macros are included. I was
> thinking of elegance in terms of simplicity of use for the end user, not in
> the sense that programmers sometimes use it. It seemed to me that an internal
> keyword, based on point_at or look_at would simply be more intuitive while
> coding than having to invoke a macro. But hey, I'll take the macro, gladly. :
> )
The beauty of the standard macro collection is that you simply include the
file and the functions act just like built in keywords. They are basically
transparent to the user and offer the added benifit that if the function
does not work as you want it to you modify it until it does. That is
something you cannot do with built in features :)
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
