Hey guys!

> for pesimists: we are periphery of market
for realists: we need no market and no market needs us
> for optimists: we are elite of market

> for pesimists: it can't be good because it's free
for realists: Being free makes it even better
> for optimists: it is so good because it's free

> for pesimists: it's for text oriented nerds
for realists: it is not a modeller
> for optimists: it's for advanced math oriented experimentators

> for pesimists: community shoots everybody with no help
for realists: a community without economic interests has many advantages
> for optimists: own community, good resources and almost online help



Florian
-- 
//=================[web: http://www.torfbold.com]==================\\
#local a=-5;#while(a<5)sphere{<sin(a*pi)*5a*10pow(a,5)*.01>sin(a*a*a*
.1)+1pigment{rgb 9*z}}#local a=a+.01;#end camera{look_at-y*10location
<8,-3,-8>*10}// [www.povray.org]     [www.imp.org]     [www.irtc.org]

Post a reply to this message

in news:3f5b3f31$1@news.povray.org Tim Cook wrote:

> In my opinion, postwork is a
> crutch if you're doing something with it that could
> just as well be done inside the renderer with a little
> effort...now, if you're on a deadline for a job, fine,
> take all the shortcuts you need; but if you're just
> doing the image as a hobby, isn't it more satisfying
> to see how much you can accomplish with just your
> renderer?

So a sculptor should look for a piece of stone that has the exact right 
colours in the right spots, and should not use paint on his sculptures?

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

Hi ingo

> So a sculptor should look for a piece of stone that has the exact right 
> colours in the right spots, and should not use paint on his sculptures?

of course he can use paint. but he should not take a photo of the 
scuplture and post process it in photo shop :)

SCNR,
Florian
-- 
//=================[web: http://www.torfbold.com]==================\\
#local a=-5;#while(a<5)sphere{<sin(a*pi)*5a*10pow(a,5)*.01>sin(a*a*a*
.1)+1pigment{rgb 9*z}}#local a=a+.01;#end camera{look_at-y*10location
<8,-3,-8>*10}// [www.povray.org]     [www.imp.org]     [www.irtc.org]

Post a reply to this message

MPG.19c5a4f7920f481498989f@news.povray.org...
> >  Modellers for povray?. Almost every 3D$ program can act
> > as a modeller for povray
> Sort of...

I was talking about meshes, obviously, not CSG.
If the 3D$ program can export to obj., .dxf or .3ds
you can use it in Povray using Poseray, that has an
excellent mesh2 output.

> > (I'm still waiting for someone who create a converter from
> > mesh or mesh2 to obj or 3ds.)
> This is why it is only 'sort of'.

I think you misunderstand me (or I explain myself wrong as usual).
What I was saying is that it would be fine if such a conversor exists
(from mesh or mesh2 to .obj or 3DS).
It's not an idea from mine. I read it in p.b.i. in a post made by Gilles
Tran on 15/7/03, thread "POV-Tree 1.1 Examples":

"..., but there's also a more hidden advantage
to mesh2 : its syntax is close to the obj format (lists of vertices,
normals, uvs). If you can output to mesh2 you can figure out how to
output to OBJ (I think Rune did something like this). And OBJ, unlike
mesh2 which is POV-only, is a popular 3d format which means that
your app could export to any 3d application out there from Bryce to
Maya."

> If it doesn't output native POV code or
> only supports a version from 10 years ago, or fails to support some basic
> features (Moray's direct addition of SDL doesn't count imho, especially
> if it is an object you are trying to add and position), then it isn't
> really a good POV-Ray modeller.

I think Moray direct addition of SDL does count. One thing you cannot set
in Moray is an skysphere. With DirectCode it's easy (you can use the Texture
Editor to make the pigments and copy - paste the result if you like).
With other objects you can use a dummy to add and position your SDL
object in the scene.
But Moray really outputs native POV code, supports the last version and
the basic (and some advanced) features of POV by itself.
Almost everythng I model is done in Moray or in Hamapatch and Moray,
and my scenes are usually a mixture of meshes or bicubic patches and CSG.
I wouldn't say that Moray isn't really a good POV-Ray modeller, simply
'cos that's not true.

> Nearly every conversion method messes
> something up, fails to convert some things or flat out won't support some
> features that make it impossible to take full advantage of the modellers
> capabilities.

I think Poseray do a great job with .obj files (because we are talking
about models, not about complete scenes, right?)

> A 'real' modeller for POV-Ray would have to be 100%
> supportive of the current version and at least attempt to provide native
> and 'accurate' conversion of models from other popular apps. Having 16
> different programs to do this, because all of them are missing something
> you need, isn't helpful in the least from my view.

I also miss in Moray a feature relative to conversion of other 3D formats.
It was discussed in moray.beta and the short answer is "use 3DWin" :(
Anyway, since I use Povray I have used a lot of different programs to
do different things (from sPatch to TextureView) and we are talking
mainly about freeware programs or low cost shareware. Usually is
the price you have to pay if you don't want to pay real money. But
is something I can live with (and enjoy ;-).

See you

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

In article <3f5cbcbc$1@news.povray.org>,
 Florian Brucker <tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:
>> So a sculptor should look for a piece of stone that has the exact right 
>> colours in the right spots, and should not use paint on his sculptures?
>
>of course he can use paint. but he should not take a photo of the 
>scuplture and post process it in photo shop :)

Post-processing within a 3d program has significant advantages over post 
processing outside of the program. I think the statue/paint analogy is 
more apt than the statue/photoshop analogy. When MegaPOV had post 
processing, it wasn't just a matter of a simple filter running over the 
"surface" of the image (though that has its advantages); the filters had 
access to depth information, for example; and while I don't recall that 
in MegaPOV post processing had access to actual object information, 
there's no reason they shouldn't (i.e., knowledge about which object the 
filter is applying to when it changes pixel x).

Integrated post processing has the potential to allow us sculptors to do 
marvelous things that are either impossible or difficult directly within 
the 3D scene. Somethings are not really part of the scene, but are part 
of the resulting image. Making changes to the scene to fake out the 
renderer is certainly possible, but generally more time-consuming and 
prone to error.

One of the best examples of this for me was adding edges based solely on 
depth information; certainly, there are and have been ways of doing this 
as part of each object, but that's a hack to produce results that mimic 
what post processing can do easily, and it is more difficult to boot.

Post processing also allows much easier automation. It makes it trivial 
to automatically convert an image to greyscale, for an example that I 
used often. Again, you could certainly do so without post-processing, 
but 'trivial' is probably not the correct term, and even then you would 
be attempting to trick the renderer into doing what post-processing can 
do 'naturally': convert the *final image* to greyscale.

Post processing is probably the main reason I keep a copy of the old 
MegaPOV around.

Jerry
-- 
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.ItIsntMurder.com/)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3f5cbfa2@news.povray.org>, tji### [at] euskalnetnet says...

> MPG.19c5a4f7920f481498989f@news.povray.org...
> > >  Modellers for povray?. Almost every 3D$ program can act
> > > as a modeller for povray
> > Sort of...
> 
> I was talking about meshes, obviously, not CSG.
> If the 3D$ program can export to obj., .dxf or .3ds
> you can use it in Povray using Poseray, that has an
> excellent mesh2 output.
> 
True enough.

> "..., but there's also a more hidden advantage
> to mesh2 : its syntax is close to the obj format (lists of vertices,
> normals, uvs). If you can output to mesh2 you can figure out how to
> output to OBJ (I think Rune did something like this). And OBJ, unlike
> mesh2 which is POV-only, is a popular 3d format which means that
> your app could export to any 3d application out there from Bryce to
> Maya."
> 
Yes, but having to export to .obj, then covert it again someplace else is 
a pain in the rear. It would be nicer to get the Mesh2 from the start or 
have support of .obj in pov itself. This also won't work for anything 
that isn't outputable in .obj. With the amount of stuff I download and 
install, and keep installed, I can't afford dozens of programs to cover 
all contingencies. If other people can, then good for them, but it 
frustrates me. lol

> > If it doesn't output native POV code or
> > only supports a version from 10 years ago, or fails to support some basic
> > features (Moray's direct addition of SDL doesn't count imho, especially
> > if it is an object you are trying to add and position), then it isn't
> > really a good POV-Ray modeller.
> 
> I think Moray direct addition of SDL does count.
The problem here is that it often fails to support commonly use, but non-
standard things like negative lights or values outside of specified 
ranges. This may make sense from the standpoint of following the spec, 
but it is a problem when it fails to account for the way things are 
actually used. Another example is how you can link a camera or light to 
each other in SDL, or even to an object, but you can't do so in Moray. If 
you are doing animation, this means a potential mess of extra work. All 
these things could be done in the direct SDL, but if I am using a 
modeller, I want to do it in the modeller. If I have to use SDL anyway, I 
may as well do the entire thing in the SDL, since I have better control 
over things anyway.

The fact that you can do something doesn't mean it is convenient to do 
so. And it undermines the whole point of having a GUI to build the scene 
in, since you can't check any of it unless you render. Same goes for 
using a substitute object. It is problematic at best in some cases to use 
such a limited stand in and have everything behave the way you planned. 
Moray is getting better, but there are still things it does that bug me.

> But Moray really outputs native POV code, supports the last version and
> the basic (and some advanced) features of POV by itself.
> Almost everythng I model is done in Moray or in Hamapatch and Moray,
> and my scenes are usually a mixture of meshes or bicubic patches and CSG.
> I wouldn't say that Moray isn't really a good POV-Ray modeller, simply
> 'cos that's not true.
> 
If everything else is worse, it doesn't mean that it can compare to the 
built in ones that things like Maya use. It is the best one available, 
and in that sense it is 'good', but it isn't as good as it needs to be to 
compare to its potential rivals.

> > A 'real' modeller for POV-Ray would have to be 100%
> > supportive of the current version and at least attempt to provide native
> > and 'accurate' conversion of models from other popular apps. Having 16
> > different programs to do this, because all of them are missing something
> > you need, isn't helpful in the least from my view.
> 
> I also miss in Moray a feature relative to conversion of other 3D formats.
> It was discussed in moray.beta and the short answer is "use 3DWin" :(
> Anyway, since I use Povray I have used a lot of different programs to
> do different things (from sPatch to TextureView) and we are talking
> mainly about freeware programs or low cost shareware. Usually is
> the price you have to pay if you don't want to pay real money. But
> is something I can live with (and enjoy ;-).
> 
In the 3D world, real money means compatible to everyone else (or with 
conversion), as long as they change at least 25% of the highest price 
program in the bunch. I don't particularly consider that an incentive to 
even consider buying it, since the result is $250 tools that won't do 
much of anything for products that you may have to pay a minimum of 
$1000, for the 'learning' version. Most of these can't or won't produce 
anything as high quality as POV-Ray, even if they do it a bit faster. 
Must be the platinum and diamond filler they put in their boxes we are 
expected to pay for, though I have never found anything but cardboard in 
the ones I bought. I must just have really bad luck. ;) lol

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

In article <jer### [at] netplexaussieorg>, 
jer### [at] acusdedu says...
> In article <3f5cbcbc$1@news.povray.org>,
>  Florian Brucker <tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:
> >> So a sculptor should look for a piece of stone that has the exact right 
> >> colours in the right spots, and should not use paint on his sculptures?
> >
> >of course he can use paint. but he should not take a photo of the 
> >scuplture and post process it in photo shop :)
> 
> Post-processing within a 3d program has significant advantages over post 
> processing outside of the program.

Well. In the program, where the process takes into account the original 
scene, I would consider OK. It is like, using the statue analogy, you 
where merely polishing the surface of a more of less finished sculpture. 
The problem with external effects added through Photoshop and the like is 
that the effect is more like getting 85% of the way through producing 
your sculpture, then sticking it in an alcove, where you can't see the 
incomplete back, then placing special glass in front of it to blur the 
edges, so you can't tell that they are unfinished either. You may be able 
to prevent anyone from noticing the flaws and you could even conceivably 
win in a contest, if the only thing anyone was allowed to judge by was 
the final photo you took of it, but its a cheap trick that doesn't show 
your true skill, only how good you are at hiding your mistakes or 
laziness.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

in news:MPG.19c8447522456ad49898a2@news.povray.org Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> [...] if the only thing anyone was allowed to judge by was 
> the final photo you took of it, but its a cheap trick that doesn't show 
> your true skill, only how good you are at hiding your mistakes or 
> laziness.[...]
> 

Do you also tell your car mechanic that he can only use a screwdriver on 
your car because otherwise you don't concider him skillfull??

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns### [at] netplexaussieorg>, 
ing### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> in news:MPG.19c8447522456ad49898a2@news.povray.org Patrick Elliott wrote:
> >
> > [...] if the only thing anyone was allowed to judge by was 
> > the final photo you took of it, but its a cheap trick that doesn't show 
> > your true skill, only how good you are at hiding your mistakes or 
> > laziness.[...]
> > 
> 
> Do you also tell your car mechanic that he can only use a screwdriver on 
> your car because otherwise you don't concider him skillfull??
> 
> Ingo
> 
> 

If the point of the contest is too see how many things he can fix using a 
screw driver, then yes. But the analogy is wrong, it is more like the 
difference between them fixing a dent by bending the metal back to 
normal, or being lazy and filling in every dent using some sort of epoxy 
compound and repainting the entire car, with a color that they feel is 
close enough to the original that no one will notice. If they are showing 
off a new model, I don't expect them to hide its flaws. If they are 
showing how good they are are using product X, I don't expect them to 
feed it through 2-3 different Photoshop filters after.

It is the difference between paying someone to produce something where 
the 'primary' concern is that it looks good and a demonstration of skill 
when using a specific program. Someone showing off how good they are at 
wood working isn't going to get praised when someone finds out that A) he 
used plastic and B) he painted on the wood texture. He may get linched, 
but not praised. So.. Someone posts an image in a forum for say 
Lightwave, saying 'look how good I am', and then at the bottom it gives a 
list of a half dozen things he used to post process it. How is this 
different that someone trying to pass off chunk of painted plastic for a 
wooden sculpture?

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

in news:MPG.19c9307bc6d3699d9898a3@news.povray.org Patrick Elliott wrote:

> If the point of the contest is too see how many ...

There is no contest. There is just the artist, craftsman, scientist with 
an urge to create. Why should this person be limited in the tools to be 
used? In the end it's the result that counts, not the way it's acheived

Ingo

Post a reply to this message