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