I just installed uvpov on my linux box and I was making some new
aliases in bash to use it from any working directory : needing to
see how uvpov would behave when rendering a standard .pov I was
quite surprised to see that the uvpov rendering is much, much more
illuminated than standard pov 3.1g, although I use the same file,
assumed_gamma and display gamma in both cases... The effect
certainly is pleasant yet I'd like to know that it will also be
fairly predictable.

	Anybody else had that experience ?


	Thanks,

Post a reply to this message

I get the opposite here.  UVPov 6.0 is darker than WinPOV 3.1g.  In a scene
I used to check this on it has a wine glass on a plane with wood normal (no
wood color_map though) and the normal is strikingly different. The glass and
wine is a little darker; as is the plane as well, or because of the effect
on the normal it appears so.
The wine shadow (and faked caustic, no photons used) is much improved in
UVPov versus Official POV, being brighter while the wine itself is darker
giving everything a better contrast.

Bob

<jrm### [at] videotronca> wrote in message news:38209367.C700C807@videotron.ca...
>
> I just installed uvpov on my linux box and I was making some new
> aliases in bash to use it from any working directory : needing to
> see how uvpov would behave when rendering a standard .pov I was
> quite surprised to see that the uvpov rendering is much, much more
> illuminated than standard pov 3.1g, although I use the same file,
> assumed_gamma and display gamma in both cases... The effect
> certainly is pleasant yet I'd like to know that it will also be
> fairly predictable.
>
> Anybody else had that experience ?
>
>
> Thanks,

Post a reply to this message

Hmm... I haven't experienced this.  Watch out for differences in layered
textures (you may need to use #version to make UVPov look like the official
POV).

-Nathan

<jrm### [at] videotronca> wrote in...
>
> I just installed uvpov on my linux box and I was making some new
> aliases in bash to use it from any working directory : needing to
> see how uvpov would behave when rendering a standard .pov I was
> quite surprised to see that the uvpov rendering is much, much more
> illuminated than standard pov 3.1g, although I use the same file,
> assumed_gamma and display gamma in both cases... The effect
> certainly is pleasant yet I'd like to know that it will also be
> fairly predictable.
>
> Anybody else had that experience ?
>
>
> Thanks,

Post a reply to this message

The version default to 3.1. What version should I try? Anyway, I
guess that it is an effect on the transparent color maps.
Here's the file (attached): it's simplified but present the same
effect. Run it under standard pov and uvpov to see. 

	I'm just starting to use uvpov. I guess that I'll understand later.

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> Hmm... I haven't experienced this.  Watch out for differences in layered
 textures (you may need to use #version to make UVPov look like the
official
> POV).
> 
> -Nathan
> 



> > I just installed uvpov on my linux box and I was making some new
> > aliases in bash to use it from any working directory : needing to
> > see how uvpov would behave when rendering a standard .pov I was
> > quite surprised to see that the uvpov rendering is much, much more

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)

For my compile of UVPov compared against the official windows version, both
images were identical.  Removing the "#version 3.1" did change the image.
The reason is that by default UVPov treats layered textures differently.  It
treats filter like filter and transmit like transmit (the official version
treats both filter and transmit like transmit).  Adding "#version 3.1"
enables backwards compatibility.

-Nathan

<jrm### [at] videotronca> wrote...
>
> The version default to 3.1. What version should I try? Anyway, I
> guess that it is an effect on the transparent color maps.
> Here's the file (attached): it's simplified but present the same
> effect. Run it under standard pov and uvpov to see.
>
> I'm just starting to use uvpov. I guess that I'll understand later.
>
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... I haven't experienced this.  Watch out for differences in layered
>  textures (you may need to use #version to make UVPov look like the
> official
> > POV).
> >
> > -Nathan
> >
>

>
> > > I just installed uvpov on my linux box and I was making some new
> > > aliases in bash to use it from any working directory : needing to
> > > see how uvpov would behave when rendering a standard .pov I was
> > > quite surprised to see that the uvpov rendering is much, much more


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> #version 3.1;
>
> #include "colors.inc"
> #include "stones.inc"
>
> #declare Bille = sphere {0,1
> texture {T_Stone6}
> }
>
> light_source { <1, 3, -5>
> color rgb<1,1,1>}
>
> camera {location <0, 0, -3>
> look_at 0}
>
> object {Bille}

Post a reply to this message