 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2015 16:32, jhu wrote:
> A lot of that can be approximated using textures instead. While what they do is
> pretty neat, there's always some trick to be able to get a similar effect that
> they did.
>
>
As you say, approximated. I agree with that as I have done some
incursions in that territory in the past. However, when you look at the
really fine details of their fabrics, you are shown things which are
pretty hard to simulate with textures, like the fine filaments from the
threads. These kind of details are rarely necessary in a scene, but they
certainly increase the natural effect of the lighting on them.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2015 18:33, Mr wrote:
> Sorry for the off topic drift then. So would this be something similar to the
> cloth shading models that Luxrender and Mistuba offer? from the following page
> it looks like the renderer used for the paper was Mitsuba
>
http://www.mitsuba-renderer.org/devblog/2012/05/mitsuba-used-in-siggraph-2012-technical-papers/
> And since both these renderers are blender centric, you can indeed achieve these
> effects from Blender.
>
Yes, that definitely is Mistuba. So, if possible to achieve in Blender,
I suppose they can then be exported to POV-Ray? :-)
That would be something neat!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Afterthought.
From the video, I guess one could do something similar using
appropriate df3 files in POV-Ray. The basic weave pattern initially
presented suspiciously resembles a df3.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> Afterthought.
> From the video, I guess one could do something similar using
> appropriate df3 files in POV-Ray. The basic weave pattern initially
> presented suspiciously resembles a df3.
>
>
> --
> Thomas
from what I understood of the process, it basically is like media with a df3
file, except that they deform the pattern to get the surface.
actually, if you had a cloth object that was a closed mesh, and media could be
oriented along a surface normal, then povray could do this.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > Afterthought.
> > From the video, I guess one could do something similar using
> > appropriate df3 files in POV-Ray. The basic weave pattern initially
> > presented suspiciously resembles a df3.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas
>
> from what I understood of the process, it basically is like media with a df3
> file, except that they deform the pattern to get the surface.
>
> actually, if you had a cloth object that was a closed mesh, and media could be
> oriented along a surface normal, then povray could do this.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
The requirement of a closed mesh would make the whole scene much too heavy, I
think that's why the system is clever, If I understood correctly, it's a shading
model, so doesn't require the real volume... that's also why it's not exportable
from blender, because it's a renderer's feature, and occurs outside of Blender,
it only occurs after the geometry export during actual rendering process.
There is a feature that could be comparatively usefull though slightly less
accurate to create the fabric effects but at a fraction of the computing time
and would provide a diversity of other uses: it's tangent space normal maps,
which POV-Ray still lacks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-1-2015 14:28, Mr wrote:
> There is a feature that could be comparatively usefull though slightly less
> accurate to create the fabric effects but at a fraction of the computing time
> and would provide a diversity of other uses: it's tangent space normal maps,
> which POV-Ray still lacks.
Yes, that is something which would be interesting to have in POV-Ray.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2015-01-07 21:56, jhu wrote:
>> I find Blender to be a massive pain to use. I can't import my models into it
>> >from povray, which is the only place I ever create models, and the interface is
>> >a clunky mass of mystery meat.
> It's a clunky mess because you're not used to it. That will be the same no
> matter what program you use (AutoCAD, Maya, 3D Studio Max, etc.).
>
That's such a lame excuse. It's a clunky mess because... It's a clunky mess.
Blender's UI absolutely, positively sucks. Period.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Todd Carnes <tod### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2015-01-07 21:56, jhu wrote:
> >> I find Blender to be a massive pain to use. I can't import my models into it
> >> >from povray, which is the only place I ever create models, and the interface is
> >> >a clunky mass of mystery meat.
>
> > It's a clunky mess because you're not used to it. That will be the same no
> > matter what program you use (AutoCAD, Maya, 3D Studio Max, etc.).
> >
>
> That's such a lame excuse. It's a clunky mess because... It's a clunky mess.
>
> Blender's UI absolutely, positively sucks. Period.
It's been worse.
Also, from my experience most 3D UIs suck. And it doesn't help that they do so
in entirely different ways.
BTW, the fact that Blender -- like most other 3D modelling software -- can't
import stuff from POV-Ray isn't any surprise either, given that POV-Ray uses (1)
a vastly larger number of different geometric primitives (most 3D software can
only handle triangle or polygon meshes) and (2) a non-trivial proprietary clunky
mess of a full-fledged programming language for scene description (most 3D
software only deals with plain lists of objects).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.01.2015 um 08:17 schrieb Stephen:
> I thought it was interesting and the results outstanding.
> You could, with a lot of work, create your own "CT" scan as a df3. Using
> PovRay.
People have already done it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/19/2015 8:48 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 08.01.2015 um 08:17 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> I thought it was interesting and the results outstanding.
>> You could, with a lot of work, create your own "CT" scan as a df3. Using
>> PovRay.
>
> People have already done it.
>
And are doing it as we speak.
I have quietly joined in Michael and Scott's thread about isosurfaces.
Only, I have created a DF3 of a Mandelbulb.
I was going to ask if anyone ha an example of using:
#macro ARRAYS_WriteDF3(Array, FileName, BitDepth)
To create df3's?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
