 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
> I'd recommend starting by making an improved Include menu (I know
Bah, it's the Insert menu.
> there's at least one project out there that does so, but I don't
OK, the best insert menu addon I know of is at
http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/down/insert_a.htm
And I know that the current Insert menu lists the current include files,
but that's not enough IMO. Each one should be a separate sub-menu, with
an entry for each and every material / texture / finish / shape /
kitchen sink.
Then, we'd see more people using what we already have.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> What would it need to get foreign work into povray standard include files?
Well the first issue is that we need to get a written release of permission,
plus if the work is based on another work, that needs permission, etc etc ...
I don't deny the standard scenes and includes could be supplemented usefully,
perhaps as an additional download (or included with the standard one - I
think people are a bit less worried about download sizes now than they were
ten years ago).
In terms of an object collection, while it's something I'd love to see, to do
it properly would probably require that we have some sort of standard means
to 'encapsulate' an object. By that I mean that if you want to for example
'#include "kitchensink.inc" in your scene, it would help if the way you /use/
the kitchen sink is standardized, with respect to the initial size, placement
and so forth. Another possibility is to have some standard 'knobs' that all
such objects share (where 'knobs' are a set of predefined SDL variables that
can be set prior to the #include, or passed in the macro call if applicable).
I have some other ideas for objects, too, but that's not for now.
If the community wanted to work together to come up with a system that would
smoothly integrate with other people's workflow by providing some standards
such as this I'd be quite prepared to support it by setting up a site for it
and providing whatever hosting support is needed.
-- Chris
POV-Team
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers:
"I think one problem hampering this is integration within POV's menu
system."
While i'm probably in the minority here, i don't use povray menu system at
all: i use Linux at home and open the pov file i'm working on and a few
include files in vim. It gives me nice syntax highlight and identifier
completion. Other than that, i know a large deal of the language and what
i do not know or have doubts, i lookup the manual.
Sometimes, i do some poving at work -- my workplace luckily doesn't feature
the "No pov" sign as featured in some JVP's images :) -- running Windows,
but i still don't use it to or else i may forget the language and
constructs. yeah, call me a gluton for punishment... :P
Anyway, my point is that while integrated Insert Menu would be good, it
doesn't hamper not including more and more up-to-date include files.
Chris Cason:
"t would help if the way you /use/
the kitchen sink is standardized, with respect to the initial size,
placement
and so forth."
Yes, indeed. Very good point. I myself use the following convention:
model an object freely and when i think it's good enough to be in the
libray, i use a "metric checkered plane" in the background and orthographic
camera placed -5*z. Then, i resize the object so that either height or
width fits 1 unit wide and then try to place that exactly at the center
(for symetric objects) or placed upon the origin (for chairs, for
instance). Following that, it's easy to place it anywhere in scenes or
rotate and scale according to current needs.
"If the community wanted to work together to come up with a system that
would
smoothly integrate with other people's workflow by providing some standards
such as this I'd be quite prepared to support it by setting up a site for it
and providing whatever hosting support is needed."
Listen to Chris, people!
I've seen such efforts in the past, like the old Povray Objects Collection,
but this is an effort to actually get some of those INTO povray standard
libs. I'm more than eager to do that. Anyone with me?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> schreef in bericht
news:web.4559c29c341a4ab7f2ff13290@news.povray.org...
> Listen to Chris, people!
>
> I've seen such efforts in the past, like the old Povray Objects
> Collection,
> but this is an effort to actually get some of those INTO povray standard
> libs. I'm more than eager to do that. Anyone with me?
>
I certainly would support such an action!!
As Ben Chambers has mentioned, there is
http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/down/insert_a.htm which is a very nice
addition to the insert menu; there is the isoCSG menu by Cristoph Hormann
(http://www.imagico.de/pov/tools.html); both should be standard in POV-Ray,
I believe. They reside in my Insert menu, and while I do not use them dayly,
they come in very handy as soon as I need something specific.
Concerning objects, I think those would need a special menu, perhaps
separate even from the Insert menu? Alternatively, a revival of the POV-Ray
Object Collection is perhaps indicated. In any case, some standard rules
should be defined in order to be allowed to upload, like using the POV unit
as the norm (with automatic scaling to metric or imperial systems?) etc,
etc...
Finally, I agree with Nemesis that we shouldn't always (have to) re-invent
the wheel. Creating from scratch is certainly very useful for learning (I do
it often), but it can be in the way to a creative process. In that latter
case, being able to pull things out of the box, as it were, works much
better and is much more productive.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
> Well the first issue is that we need to get a written release of permission,
> plus if the work is based on another work, that needs permission, etc etc ...
I was thinking, when I saw the short-code contest announcement, that it
would be cool to see a "texture" contest. One submits a texture, be it
wood, stone, leaves, water, skin, hair, whatever, in a fairly simple
scene, self-contained, not unlike Tek's recent "artistic water".
I'm not sure how good an idea this is, but I thought it would be a cool
way to showcase POV, showing off its strengths relative to more
model-oriented renderers.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where is it?"
"Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation."
"..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote:
> Are there good reasons for not doing this? Perhaps the licensing would be
> difficult...
I'm guessing most povray code published to websites like
povray.text.scene-files, Povray Objects Collection or even the IRTC are in
the public domain. They were published without a copyright attached and in
some of them it's even impossible to determine any way to contact the
original author (no email or out-of-date). Besides, people posting to
these places seem to actually WANT to contribute to povray in a certain
sense or else they wouldn't publish it. I may be wrong...
> Maybe the revival of the POV-Ray objects collection would do the trick.
It would still fall in the same problem: someone has to search over the web
to have a nice library. I'm thinking more of bringing the povray standard
include files a facelift for more modern times. I'm not thinking about
replacing the old files, but to complement them with more modern and
featureful addons. If you want basic textures for objects far away, stick
with the classics, if you want very detailed layered texture_mapped
textures, you have it in the very own povray stdlib as well.
I want a more modern standard complex object other than the bicubic_patch
Utah Teapot that comes with povray as well. Blender has a monkey head! :D
Chairs, bottles, vases, dishes, a few furniture all come to mind as well.
It should be cool to cram into povray stdlib all the nice techniques the
povray community has come up with all over these years. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
web.4559f466341a4ab73976a8750@news.povray.org...
> I'm guessing most povray code published to websites like
> povray.text.scene-files, Povray Objects Collection or even the IRTC are in
> the public domain. They were published without a copyright attached and
> in
> some of them it's even impossible to determine any way to contact the
> original author (no email or out-of-date). Besides, people posting to
> these places seem to actually WANT to contribute to povray in a certain
> sense or else they wouldn't publish it. I may be wrong...
It's a complicated topic, but in a nutshell copyright is automatic, except
for certain works, like official publications in certain countries, that are
directly in the public domain. Copyright expires after a certain period of
time, but POV-Ray isn't old enough for scene files to enter automatically in
the public domain... Actually, for an individual, releasing something in the
public domain is not straightforward either: one can always put a disclaimer
and wave his/her rights (this is what I did for the scene/image I uploaded
for the Wikipedia article on POV-Ray), but this does not mean that the
disclaimer will be legal everywhere.
So, no, POV-Ray code is practically never in the public domain. However, as
people have been more aware of these issues lately, recent code often has a
clear license attached (one from Creative Commons for instance).
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> So, no, POV-Ray code is practically never in the public domain.
I would be extremely surprised if *any* code at all (SDL or anything)
is in the public domain anywhere.
In about 100 years there will start being some, but not before.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I'm not sure how good an idea this is, but I thought it would be a cool
> way to showcase POV, showing off its strengths relative to more
> model-oriented renderers.
I think it's an excellent idea. I don't think I've ever seen a texture
contest. (I'd include 'materials' in that category too). Though I have no
idea how you would judge such a contest unless you set specific goals.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
> idea how you would judge such a contest unless you set specific goals.
When I travel, I often take photographs of textures, just to use in
other artistic-type projects. Perhaps verisimilitude to actual
photographs? Or simply "here's five judges, and we let them pick"?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where is it?"
"Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation."
"..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
