stbenge escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> "kike" <dry### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to 
>>> learn
>>> Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I 
>>> haven't found
>>> a texture generator as Pov texture generator.
>>
>> This is not quite right.  Perhaps you are just still very green and 
>> missing
>> functionality in the UI.  Procedurals in Blender are about as powerful 
>> than in
>> Povray, except you enter color/texture lists with very practical dragging
>> controls.
> 
> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere near 
> as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own 
> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system may 
> start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.

Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level of 
functionality, and quite a few more features.

> Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and the 
> node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things I can 
> easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible to do in 
> Blender.

Is this a challenge? ;)

If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to 
reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)

> At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things. In 
> POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great for 
> science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have 
> radiosity in your scene, etc.

On a side note, Blender also has an internal radiosity engine, along 
with a raytracer.

> Now, if I 
> could just find inspiration....

Oh, come on!  Even uninspired, you're an inspiration to all of us! :D

Post a reply to this message

Jeff Houck <jho### [at] northrimnet> wrote:
> kike wrote:
> > Hi all!!
> >
> > Just a comment about my trip from Pov to Blender. I'm still trying to learn
> > Blenders dark path and I have discovered something astonishing. I haven't found
> > a texture generator as Pov texture generator. When you jump to programs like
> > Blender (or 3dS) you are supposed to PAINT almost all the textures you use if
> > you want them to look right through UV maps.
> >
> > It is incredible that they didnt put any effort in the developement of a good
> > texture generator. It is not obvious, for instance, to do a texture map. To put
> > a standard texture inside another pattern. So, as I have said, you have to use
> > UV maps or images to texture your Blender models.
> >
> > It is true that this feature (UV mapping) is easy to use and very well inserted.
> > But I miss Pov procedurals. I miss them so much that I still use Pov to paint my
> > textures!!! and then I introduce them into blender as images.
> >
> > So finally (thanks God) I'm not going to loose my connection with Pov.
> >
> > Thanks!!!
> >
> > ---------------------
> > www.enriquesahagun.es
> >
> >
>
> You might want check out Wings3D: www.wings3d.com  It comes with a
> fairly good POVRAY exporter built in...

Modeling Program: you know how you use it, only if you wrote it; at least for
some time. And so much time to develop, even if you wrote it, takes some effort
to remember what you did.

Blender is the best importer I've seen, almost everything but pov mesh. Then
export to obj and open with PoseRay, what a Gem PoseRay is!

As for modeling with POV, I know I have more possibilities to explore yet feel
modeling programs to be unnecessary at this point, CSG. For modeling human form
we all should have been able to afford hover cars by now, let alone 3D scanners,
but noooooo$, greed has to make it this way.

Post a reply to this message

Ok, Ok, OK, wait a minute:

I'm not saying Blender is not good. Actually I'm learning to use blender because
I wanted to do things I can not do with Pov. In particular those things
connected with mesh and animations, in which Blender is quite powerful. In fact
I'm very grateful to Blender, I'm still astonished with the million things you
can do with it.

And in particular, textures are very powerful in Blender. But in my opinion, not
as powerful as in PovRay. It is true that you can do very interesting things in
the textures section. BUT THERE IS AN OBVIOUS THING you can do in Pov which is
not obvious in Blender. To set textures inside textures. For instance to set a
crackle texture inside a bozo texture in such a way that there is crackle only
in the bozo spots.

When you want to design complex textures in Pov, you have lots of possibilities.
I can make a list of the things I miss:

- Bricks, hexagons
- texture maps (texture INSIDE textures, not textures OVER textures)
- the way you control the noise in your textures (turbulence, wrap, lambda,
omega, etc

When you want complex textures in Blender, it is better to paint it (or to get a
photograph, OR TO USE POV!!! JAJAJA) Obviously, I would be able to make a
similar list about the things that are better in Blender, but that is another
story.


---------------------------
www.enriquesahagun.es

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> stbenge escreveu:
>> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere 
>> near as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own 
>> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system 
>> may start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.
> 
> Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level of 
> functionality, and quite a few more features.

More features like ambient occlusion, angle of incidence shaders and 
other mapping features... yes. But as kike mentioned, you can't place 
textures inside of textures. POV-Ray also has other pattern modifiers 
which make life much easier....

>> Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and the 
>> node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things I can 
>> easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible to do 
>> in Blender.
> 
> Is this a challenge? ;)

If you want it to be :)

> If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to 
> reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)

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

>> At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things. 
>> In POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great 
>> for science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have 
>> radiosity in your scene, etc.
> 
> 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. 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.

>> Now, if I could just find inspiration....
> 
> Oh, come on!  Even uninspired, you're an inspiration to all of us! :D

Thanks :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

stbenge wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> stbenge escreveu:
>>> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere
>>> near as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own
>>> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system
>>> may start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.
>>
>> Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level
>> of functionality, and quite a few more features.
> 
> More features like ambient occlusion, angle of incidence shaders and
> other mapping features... yes. But as kike mentioned, you can't place
> textures inside of textures. POV-Ray also has other pattern modifiers
> which make life much easier....
> 
>>> Sure, in Blender you have access to certain textural elements, and
>>> the node-based system is nice, but I can imagine that certain things
>>> I can easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible
>>> to do in Blender.
>>
>> Is this a challenge? ;)
> 
> If you want it to be :)
> 
>> If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to
>> reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)
> 
> 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
> 
>>> At any rate, I find that each program is useful for different things.
>>> In POV you can script up anything you desire with little fuss (great
>>> for science), render thousands of instances of a complex object, have
>>> radiosity in your scene, etc.
>>
>> 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.

	Actually, Blender has "true" radiosity in that it uses the actual
radiosity algorithm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity which is
"a finite elements method to solving the rendering equation". Povray
doesn't, what pov calls "radiosity" is actually a Monte Carlo
approach for global illumination ("global illumination" and
radiosity are often confused).

	However, Blender radiosity is pretty difficult to use and get good
results with...

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkA1UIACgkQd0kWM4JG3k9K2QCfT1RNWbKVRsaoinA0mgfq2Jix
LQYAn0Ij27W5LEmWSFX8jJH2qef3fH/X
=lxwS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

stbenge escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> stbenge escreveu:
>>> "Out of the box," Blender's procedural texturing system is nowhere 
>>> near as powerful as POV-Ray's. I suppose if one were to write his own 
>>> shaders, and use scripting along with it, Blender's texturing system 
>>> may start to approach the level of POV's in terms of flexibility.
>>
>> Really?  As far as I played with it, it seems to share the same level 
>> of functionality, and quite a few more features.
> 
> More features like ambient occlusion, angle of incidence shaders and 
> other mapping features... yes. But as kike mentioned, you can't place 
> textures inside of textures. POV-Ray also has other pattern modifiers 
> which make life much easier....

>>> I can easily do in POV would prove to be very hard if not impossible 
>>> to do in Blender.
>>
>> Is this a challenge? ;)
> 
> If you want it to be :)

Shouldn't have asked... :P

>> If one can show me some difficult pov-only texture, I may try to 
>> reproduce it with Blender's procedurals alone once I get home... :)
> 
> 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

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... :/

>> 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.

> 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...

Post a reply to this message

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