|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen schrieb:
>
> > Sorry, but could someone explain me the advantage of the new clipping
> > system as i can see none?
>
> small bright objects don't disappear in AA and focal blur looks more realistic.
> In general, the new clipping system is a more realistic and a more logical
> approach.
It would be advisable not to start up this whole discussion again - it
won't have any influence on what is changed and what is not changed in
future POV-Ray development.
Or in other words: you are either both right or both wrong - choose
whatever pleases you more...
-- Christoph
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Just look at The Kitchen image carefully to see the ugly post-clipping
> artifacts (these were not taken into account in judging because it
> was decided that these artifacts can be got ridden of in future
> versions of POV-Ray).
Yes, they are specially ugly on the fridge handles... :( In fact, I
was going to use 3.5 due to this, but it was a bit slower and the
lighting needed to be tweaked again, so I rendered finally with 3.6.1.
> It is still to be decided what kind of solution future versions of
> POV-Ray will have, but even if a color-bleeding algorithm is not yet
> implemented, pre-clipped antialiasing is still a much better solution
> than the post-clipped one.
I'm not technically qualified to say which is the best solution, but
I certainly like more the results of pre-clipped aa, and the balance of
pros/cons seems better as you say. In the case of focal blur is
difficult to say what I like most, but pre-clipped focal blur seems a
bit faster.
Indeed, the color-bleeding you described so well seems very
appropriate for photorealistic images (and I'm now dreaming with it
implemented into POV), but it will be nice to have also the option to
turn it off for other type of images.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.unofficial.patches Jaime Vives Piqueres <jaimevives@ignorancia.org> wrote:
> Indeed, the color-bleeding you described so well seems very
> appropriate for photorealistic images (and I'm now dreaming with it
> implemented into POV), but it will be nice to have also the option to
> turn it off for other type of images.
Well, optimally pre-clipping, post-clipping and color-bleeding
algorithms will all co-exist as antialiasing options.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
kurtzlepirate-571F88.16540520022005@news.povray.org...
> any one can explain ?
A demonstration of the problem :
Antialiasing in 3.5
http://www.oyonale.com/temp/glass_demo_35.png
Antialiasing in 3.6
http://www.oyonale.com/temp/glass_demo_36.png
These images are rendered in regular POV-Ray using the same code. The
lighting in the 3.6 version is much better due to the new unclipped
radiosity values, and the sparkling on the glass is more realistic. However,
the antialiasing around the bright pixels is just awful compared to the one
in the 3.5 version.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:421bab2d@news.povray.org...
> kurtzlepirate-571F88.16540520022005@news.povray.org...
>
> > any one can explain ?
>
> A demonstration of the problem :
>
> Antialiasing in 3.5
> http://www.oyonale.com/temp/glass_demo_35.png
>
> Antialiasing in 3.6
> http://www.oyonale.com/temp/glass_demo_36.png
>
> These images are rendered in regular POV-Ray using the same code. The
> lighting in the 3.6 version is much better due to the new unclipped
> radiosity values, and the sparkling on the glass is more realistic. However,
> the antialiasing around the bright pixels is just awful compared to the one
> in the 3.5 version.
yes but, if I understand Warp correctly, it shouldn't be a problem to only do
pre-clipping with standard anti-aliasing. I believe everybody agrees that
unclipped colors give better and more realistic results with radiosity (you just
gave an excellent example) and with focal-blur (I made an example once:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C41d9ed03%40news.povray.o
rg%3E/?ttop=208966&toff=150), but I agree with Warp that with standard
anti-aliasing it causes more problems than it solves. I don't believe going
back to pre-clipping is the right solution, but maybe color-bleeding is too
difficult to do.
cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x) // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.unofficial.patches Zeger Knaepen <zeger.knaepen@student.kuleuven.ac.be>
wrote:
> I don't believe going
> back to pre-clipping is the right solution, but maybe color-bleeding is too
> difficult to do.
It might not be the best solution, but it's much better than the
post-clipped antialiasing.
Color-bleeding is not difficult. Its problem is, however, that it's not
unambiguous. There are many ways of doing it and deciding which way is
correct and which parameters to give (or not give) the user to fine-tune
is problematic. It also basically requires adding a post-processing step
to POV-Ray, which is a whole new world and should be done hastily and
without thought.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> post-processing step to POV-Ray, which is a whole new world and should
> be done hastily and without thought.
I agree. Only minor changes should be thought about and carefully
implemented: big stuff should just be run off in half an hour when
you're bored.
Or maybe there should have been a "not" in that sentence :->
Daniel
--
I went to the CO guess what he told me guess what he told me | apologies
He said boy u better learn to like Win no matter what u do | to Prince
But he's a fool, 'cos nothing compares, nothing compares 2 GNU
http://surreal.istic.org/ | A tidy desk is the product of an empty mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.unofficial.patches Daniel Hulme <photoreal@istic.org> wrote:
> Or maybe there should have been a "not" in that sentence :->
Nah... ;)
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Post-clipped antialiasing causes problems in a multitude of images
> very frequently. You only have to have a surface which is much brighter
> than 1 and a sharp edge adjacent to a dimmer surface (which is quite
> a common situation) to get ugly pixelation of the edge. Pixels much
> brighter than 1 are completely normal, not modelling flaws.
> Just look at The Kitchen image carefully to see the ugly post-clipping
> artifacts (these were not taken into account in judging because it
> was decided that these artifacts can be got ridden of in future
> versions of POV-Ray).
Thank you. That explains something I saw and thought was some sort of a bug
involving 3.6 and blobs (since that's where I happened to see the problem
in my case.) Aparently, though, it's caused by post-clipped antialiasing,
since the problem occurs at a place where reflections and specularity
combine to get very bright pixels. I tried upping max_trace_level,
cranking anti-alias down to 0 -- finally decided to just use the picture I
made with 3.5.
Dave Matthews
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Has this been resolved yet, or do we still use 3.5 for better antialiasing?
I just noticed that my IRTC entry has jaggies when rendered in 3.6 vs. 3.5.
Oh well.
"Dave Matthews" <dma### [at] wrmnwestmnscuedu> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Post-clipped antialiasing causes problems in a multitude of images
> > very frequently. You only have to have a surface which is much brighter
> > than 1 and a sharp edge adjacent to a dimmer surface (which is quite
> > a common situation) to get ugly pixelation of the edge. Pixels much
> > brighter than 1 are completely normal, not modelling flaws.
> > Just look at The Kitchen image carefully to see the ugly post-clipping
> > artifacts (these were not taken into account in judging because it
> > was decided that these artifacts can be got ridden of in future
> > versions of POV-Ray).
>
> Thank you. That explains something I saw and thought was some sort of a bug
> involving 3.6 and blobs (since that's where I happened to see the problem
> in my case.) Aparently, though, it's caused by post-clipped antialiasing,
> since the problem occurs at a place where reflections and specularity
> combine to get very bright pixels. I tried upping max_trace_level,
> cranking anti-alias down to 0 -- finally decided to just use the picture I
> made with 3.5.
>
> Dave Matthews
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|