 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Seems to me that image mapping different channels is inherently more
sensible and better controlled than nesting a whole lot of material maps
and so on, particuarly when using UV mapping for objects created in other
modelers and imported as meshes with UV information. I am fully aware of
how you 'could' do this effect already in POV but it would be considerably
simpler if POV were able to cope with multiple image channels, and I don't
believe it would make a difference to rendering times since other renderers
do use this technique and are not slower (in fact they can be much faster)
than POVRay. So perhaps I should apologise to the angry masses for not
being as linguistically sensitive as I might have been. You know one
really shouldn't get so touchy over software one didn't pay for.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
> Seems to me that image mapping different channels is inherently more
> sensible and better controlled than nesting a whole lot of material maps
> and so on,
Who did ever talk about nesting material maps ???
> if POV were able to cope with multiple image channels,
What is that supposed to mean now - at least it has nothing to do with
the rest of the thread (which is about patterened finish attributes).
> and I don't
> believe it would make a difference to rendering times since other renderers
> do use this technique and are not slower (in fact they can be much faster)
> than POVRay.
Even apart from the unsupported claim of 'other renderers' being much
faster i seriously hope you do not really believe this argumentation.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > if POV were able to cope with multiple image channels,
>
> What is that supposed to mean now - at least it has nothing to do with
> the rest of the thread (which is about patterened finish attributes).
Either you have no experience of the texturing techniques I refer to or you
are being deliberately obtuse in not recognising what I am talking about
when I discuss mapping different images to different channels. Yes, of
course I refer to patterned finish attributes, and bump channels as well as
colour channels. Mapping images to these channels independently is, I hate
to say it, much more sophisticated than POV's approach. Yes, you can do
the same thing in POV if you do a lot of fiddling, but with the feature I
outlined, specifically being able to map images independently to different
channels within a finish or normal block, the creation of multi-channel
textures in Photoshop, for example, would be as simple as it is in
expensive packages like Maya.
I also stand by my claim that this wouldn't slow down rendering beyond
eminently usable speeds, since it doesn't do so in other renderers. Yes,
it would require a call to an image map for the specular value at a certain
point on an object (for example) but that's no more effort than making the
call to determine the colour at a point of the object; therefore it
shouldn't take any longer to render a single colour object with
image-mapped specular channel than it would to render an image-mapped
object with a single specular value. The advantage is of course in
combining the two, in which case you could have, for example, a
colour-textured metal object with the effect of greasy fingerprints
independently produced in the reflection and specular channels. Using UV
mapping on an object would allow a lot of control over exactly where the
fingerprint appears. This kind of thing is trivial to achieve if the
channels can be mapped independently but very difficult with POVs current
texturing method. Combining POVs physically realistic rendering, which is
undoubtedly powerful, with a more robust texturing scheme as used in other
modelers would result in much wider flexibility in achievable materials.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
>
>
> Either you have no experience of the texturing techniques I refer to or you
> are being deliberately obtuse in not recognising what I am talking about
> when I discuss mapping different images to different channels.
Speaking only for myself, considering this is a POV-Ray news server, the
former is not only a safe assumption for the masses, it would be a
constructive assumption.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loki wrote:
<snipped lengthy and meaningless reply>
Duhhhh... lets see here:
1) Image Map and/or Material Map
2) Bump Map
3) In order to get a patterned "finish" I assume by "finish" you mean
something like the specular reflection of the object, and any
highlights. The only way I know to do that is to pattern a full texture,
there is not as of yet a finish map. It can be argued this is a
deficiency or oversight.
Many of the texture schemes used in other renderers are not suitable for
raytracing. There are means to map a "channel" to a texture, etc..
IMNSHO, it makes no difference, really.
You'd be suprised what you can acheive by actually RTFM and shutting
your mouth for a few minutes... and while you're taking a well needed
rest from posting, hop over to povray.binaries.images and take a look
around. Gee, some of the texturing options can get *very* realistic,
using nothing other than the existing procedural texture system.
Why are you here on POVRay's newsgroups posting, anyway...?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Loki wrote:
>
> <snipped lengthy and meaningless reply>
Pointless. Is this a friendly newsgroup or not?
> Duhhhh... lets see here:
>
> 1) Image Map and/or Material Map
> 2) Bump Map
> 3) In order to get a patterned "finish" I assume by "finish" you mean
> something like the specular reflection of the object, and any
> highlights. The only way I know to do that is to pattern a full texture,
> there is not as of yet a finish map. It can be argued this is a
> deficiency or oversight.
Precisely my point, but I don't mean to refer to this as a deficiency or
oversight, it is simply a different way of doing things that, based on my
experience and personal opinion, offers greater control over texturing
options.
> Many of the texture schemes used in other renderers are not suitable for
> raytracing. There are means to map a "channel" to a texture, etc..
> IMNSHO, it makes no difference, really.
Well IMNAHAYO (?) it makes a great difference when texturing a very complex
material to be able to control specular highlights and so on independently.
If you examine a real-world object you won't find any materials that have
perfectly uniform specular, diffuse and reflective properties across a
whole surface.
> You'd be suprised what you can acheive by actually RTFM and shutting
> your mouth for a few minutes... and while you're taking a well needed
> rest from posting, hop over to povray.binaries.images and take a look
> around. Gee, some of the texturing options can get *very* realistic,
> using nothing other than the existing procedural texture system.
I take it you actually type with your mouth open? I have read the manual
and I am aquainted with the texturing options as they currently operate. I
am also aware of the current impressive power of POVRay and have been
constantly impressed with its development over the years. I wouldn't dream
of knocking it, but I am also able to consider what could be improved and
make sensible suggestions to that effect. If other users can't accept a
suggestion without considering it trolling then that is up to them.
> Why are you here on POVRay's newsgroups posting, anyway...?
To be perfectly honest, after the response I've received I wonder that
myself. In fact I post and read this newsgroup because I am interested in
high-end graphics and I consider POVRay to be a very impressive rendering
engine. I will continue to use it regardless of the attitude of other
users.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Loki" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.41c99740e72f5907692591cf0@news.povray.org...
>
> Pointless. Is this a friendly newsgroup or not?
Heh - you should try the firefox forum someday if you want to see some
really partisan folks in action...
IMHO you have received an unfairly rough ride in this thread, for which I am
sorry.
> To be perfectly honest, after the response I've received I wonder that
> myself. In fact I post and read this newsgroup because I am interested in
> high-end graphics and I consider POVRay to be a very impressive rendering
> engine. I will continue to use it regardless of the attitude of other
> users.
Please don't judge this group on the basis of one experience, or some users
(who may have been having a bad hair day in any event).
As long as you don't ever, ever suggest that povray is any way deficient or
could be improved, you should be fine... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Paris" <par### [at] lycoscom> wrote in message
news:web.41bf577e1db2d3fb765651f90@news.povray.org...
> Other freeware packages on the web that
> attempt to do this are usually written by a single busy person, and they
> are hopelessly buggy or just plain do not work. This is the reason I
have
> come to this board to make this suggestion. Pov-ray is the most robust
and
> stable free rendering software in the world.
Paris, I have no way of judging your suggestions or analysis, but I did just
want to mention that I thought some of the reponses you received were, IMHO,
unnecessarily aggresive. So, on behalf of no one except myself, "sorry".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> Paris, I have no way of judging your suggestions or analysis, but I did just
> want to mention that I thought some of the reponses you received were, IMHO,
> unnecessarily aggresive. So, on behalf of no one except myself, "sorry".
*I* felt insulted when I finished reading some of the responses here. I
don't blame Paris for not coming back. Just because someone may or may
not fully understand something does NOT mean they should be treated like
an idiotic troll.
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:48:16 EST, "Loki" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Why are you here on POVRay's newsgroups posting, anyway...?
>
>To be perfectly honest, after the response I've received I wonder that
>myself. In fact I post and read this newsgroup because I am interested in
>high-end graphics and I consider POVRay to be a very impressive rendering
>engine. I will continue to use it regardless of the attitude of other
>users.
You just touched a nerve. Not everyone's like that about every topic.
Give us a chance. Take in Off Topic if you can be bothered. The caring
side shows better there. (Hmm, so does the nitpicking) :-)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
