POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.newusers : Lighting Server Time
30 Jul 2024 18:09:52 EDT (-0400)
  Lighting (Message 19 to 28 of 28)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Christopher James Huff
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 10:36:27
Message: <cjameshuff-886A52.10363906022004@news.povray.org>
In article <40231f9d$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> The higher the specular value, the more defined the highlight becomes.

The higher the specular value, the brighter it becomes, specular 1 
giving full brightness at the brightest points of the highlight. The 
"roughness" parameter controls the "sharpness" of the highlight...small 
values will give a more hard, highly polished look.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/


Post a reply to this message

From: Dan P
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 11:15:52
Message: <4023bdb8@news.povray.org>
"Christopher James Huff" <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:cjameshuff-5E6769.10274006022004@news.povray.org...
> In article <402320ab$1@news.povray.org>,
>  "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> Absorbing media will have a much lesser impact on speed than scattering
> media, especially when there's no variation in density to sample. And
> interior attenuation is very fast, because it never has to handle
> variable density and can use a much simpler method to compute the
> attenuation.

Oh, I see what you mean. I was basing that perception on scattering media,
not absorbing media. I'm really glad I've been reading these newsgroups -- 
it's been having a very positive impact on my scenes. Thanks, Chris!!!


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 11:29:08
Message: <4023c0d4$1@news.povray.org>
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:4021b140$1@news.povray.org...

>         phong 0.2
>         phong_size 10

I've noticed some people use phong, while others use specular. I've always
been one to use specular, because it's more "accurate", but I've noticed
some of the best scenes tend to use phong.

What do people prefer and why?


Post a reply to this message

From: Felbrigg
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 11:34:08
Message: <4023c200$1@news.povray.org>
I've hit the end on this scene now.  Not the end of learning by a long way,
thanks to everyone, and for those who want it, heres the final cut of the
code.

#include "colors.inc"
#include "textures.inc"
#include "shapes.inc"


#declare SnakeWood =
texture {  /* Bottom wood-grain layer */
    pigment {
        wood
        turbulence 0.05
        color_map {
            [0.00 rgb <0.58, 0.45, 0.23>]
            [0.34 rgb <0.65, 0.45, 0.25>]
            [0.40 rgb <0.33, 0.23, 0.13>]
            [0.47 rgb <0.60, 0.40, 0.20>]
            [1.00 rgb <0.25, 0.15, 0.05>]
        }
    }
    finish {
        crand 0.02
        //ambient 0.32
        diffuse 0.63
        phong 0.2
        phong_size 10
    }
    normal { bumps 0.05 }
}
texture {     /* top layer, adds small dark spots */
    pigment {
        bozo
        color_map {
            [0.0 rgbt <1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00>]
            [0.8 rgbt <1.00, 0.90, 0.80, 0.80>]
            [1.0 rgbt <0.30, 0.20, 0.10, 0.40>]
        }
    scale 0.25
    }
}


//light_source {<-20, 20, 0> color White area_light  <5, 0, 0>, <0, 0, 5>,
11, 11 adaptive 1 jitter photons { refraction on reflection on } }
light_source {<-20, 20, 0> color White  photons { refraction on reflection
on } }

light_source { <60, 20, -50> color rgb <0.2, 0.25, 0.3> shadowless }

camera  {
        location <0,10,-25> look_at <0,0,0>
       }

background { Black }//color <0.25,0.35,0.80> }
box     {
        <-1,-1,-1>,
        <1,1,1>
        texture {
                pigment { Red }
                }
        scale <2,2,2>
        rotate <0,-15,0>
        translate <2,1,10>
        }
box     {
        <-1,-1,-1>,
        <1,1,1>
        texture {
                pigment { Red }
                }
        scale <2,2,2>
        rotate <0,-16,0>
        translate <2,1,-9>
        }
cylinder{
        <-1,-1,-1>,
        <1,1,1>,
        1
        texture {
                pigment { White*1.1 }
                //finish { ambient 0.2}
                }
        scale <1,5,1>
        translate <-7,3,0>
        }

plane   { <0, 1, 0>, -0.001
        texture {
                SnakeWood  rotate <0,32,0>
                //pigment { checker pigment{Red}, pigment{White} } scale
<10,10,10> rotate <0,43,0>
                }
        }

#declare Point1 = <-10,1,10>;
#declare Point2 = <-10,1,0>;
#declare Point3 = <-10,1,-10>;
#declare Point4 = <0,1,-10>;
#declare Point5 = <10,1,-10>;
#declare Point6 = <15,1,2>;     //<10,1,0>;
#declare Point7 = <10,1,2>;    //<10,1,10>;
#declare Point8 = <0,1,10>;
#declare Point9 = <-14,1,12>; //<-10,1,10>;
#declare Point10 = <-10,1,0>;
#declare Point11 = <-10,1,-10>;

merge {
// outside of the puddle
sphere_sweep {
        cubic_spline
        11,
        Point1,1
        Point2,1
        Point3,1
        Point4,1
        Point5,1
        Point6,1
        Point7,1
        Point8,1
        Point9,1
        Point10,1
        Point11,1
        }

// inside of the puddle
prism {
    cubic_spline
    0, // sweep the following shape from here ...
    2, // ... up through here
    11, // the number of points making up the shape ...
        <Point1.x,Point1.z>,
        <Point2.x,Point2.z>,
        <Point3.x,Point3.z>,
        <Point4.x,Point4.z>,
        <Point5.x,Point5.z>,
        <Point6.x,Point6.z>,
        <Point7.x,Point7.z>,
        <Point8.x,Point8.z>,
        <Point9.x,Point9.z>,
        <Point10.x,Point10.z>,
        <Point11.x,Point11.z>
  }

        hollow
        texture {
                pigment {
                        Clear // rgbt <0.858824,0.576471,0.439216>
                        }
                finish  {
                        reflection { 0.1,0.8 }
                        specular 0.5
                        }
                }
                interior        {
                                ior Water_Ior
                                //ior 1.33
                                media   {
                                        absorption < 0.7, 0.8, 0.98>}
                                }


        translate <0,-1.5,0>

 }


Post a reply to this message

From: Dan P
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 12:13:25
Message: <4023cb35$1@news.povray.org>
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4023c0d4$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
> news:4021b140$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >         phong 0.2
> >         phong_size 10
>
> I've noticed some people use phong, while others use specular. I've always
> been one to use specular, because it's more "accurate", but I've noticed
> some of the best scenes tend to use phong.
>
> What do people prefer and why?

That's interesting -- I never use phong, but I would think they are the same
thing, aren't they Chris? Maybe people who make the best scenes use phong
because they are long-time users of POV-ray and phong used to be specular
(or, was it, I'm not sure -- I don't have POV-ray at work).

This is a really good question. If anybody will know the answer, it will
definitely be Chris; he's got the internals down and then some :-)


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 12:19:11
Message: <4023cc8f$1@news.povray.org>
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message news:4023cb35> That's
interesting -- I never use phong, but I would think they are the same

> thing, aren't they Chris? Maybe people who make the best scenes use phong
> because they are long-time users of POV-ray and phong used to be specular
> (or, was it, I'm not sure -- I don't have POV-ray at work).

IIRC, in the tutorial that came with earlier versions of POV-Ray, they used
phong, but specular has been available since 0.9b (and probably earlier ...)

Comparing them, they seem to yeild identical results, though, the difference
seems to be a matter of syntax... I think


Post a reply to this message

From: Dan P
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 13:29:12
Message: <4023dcf8$1@news.povray.org>
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4023cc8f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message news:4023cb35> That's
> interesting -- I never use phong, but I would think they are the same
>
> > thing, aren't they Chris? Maybe people who make the best scenes use
phong
> > because they are long-time users of POV-ray and phong used to be
specular
> > (or, was it, I'm not sure -- I don't have POV-ray at work).
>
> IIRC, in the tutorial that came with earlier versions of POV-Ray, they
used
> phong, but specular has been available since 0.9b (and probably earlier
...)
>
> Comparing them, they seem to yeild identical results, though, the
difference
> seems to be a matter of syntax... I think

There are a lot of things in POV-Ray that are from the olden days. I wonder
when the point will come where we phase those out so that the language
doesn't become confusing? (I don't think it is there yet, although I still
struggle with the media statement a lot).


Post a reply to this message

From: Christopher James Huff
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 13:34:04
Message: <cjameshuff-E67770.13341606022004@news.povray.org>
In article <4023cb35$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> That's interesting -- I never use phong, but I would think they are the same
> thing, aren't they Chris? Maybe people who make the best scenes use phong
> because they are long-time users of POV-ray and phong used to be specular
> (or, was it, I'm not sure -- I don't have POV-ray at work).
> 
> This is a really good question. If anybody will know the answer, it will
> definitely be Chris; he's got the internals down and then some :-)

Despite my lack of post-college experience?
Okay, here it goes:
They are definitely not the same thing. Phong is the older shading 
method, and is very simple mathematically, computationally cheap, but 
not very accurate. In terms of POV code, the equation used is:

phongAmt*surfaceColor*pow(vdot(reflectionVector, lightVector), phongSize)

The reflection vector is the direction a reflected ray would go, the 
light vector is a vector pointing towards the light source. When the two 
line up, their dot product equals 1, and the highlight is the brightest 
where you would see a reflection of the light. When the two are 
perpendicular, the result is 0, and the highlight drops to nothing.

Specular uses a different and more physically accurate highlight 
function:

specularAmt*surfaceColor*pow(vdot(halfPt, normal), 1/roughness)

where halfPt is halfway between the ray origin and the light source. It 
is also brightest at the points where the reflection of the light source 
would be visible, but the falloff is different.

If metallic is specified, a Fresnel reflection function is used. It 
takes the intensity part of the above calculation and adds some 
additional calculations based on the angle of the surface to the light:

specIntensity = specularAmt*pow(vdot(halfPt, normal), 1/roughness)
F = abs(acos(vdot(normal, lightVector))/(pi/2))
F = 0.014567225/sqr(F - 1.12) - 0.011612903

F is then clamped to the range 0-1, and the final highlight color is:

lightColor*specIntensity*(1 + metallicAmt*(1 - F)*(surfaceColor - 1))

This function is based on actual measurements of real-world surfaces, 
and is the most realistic highlight for metallic objects.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/


Post a reply to this message

From: Dan P
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 17:08:44
Message: <4024106c@news.povray.org>
"Christopher James Huff" <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:cjameshuff-E67770.13341606022004@news.povray.org...
> In article <4023cb35$1@news.povray.org>,
>  "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> > That's interesting -- I never use phong, but I would think they are the
same
> > thing, aren't they Chris? Maybe people who make the best scenes use
phong
> > because they are long-time users of POV-ray and phong used to be
specular
> > (or, was it, I'm not sure -- I don't have POV-ray at work).
> >
> > This is a really good question. If anybody will know the answer, it will
> > definitely be Chris; he's got the internals down and then some :-)
>
> Despite my lack of post-college experience?

I'm not falling for any more flame-bait, Chris.
Great post, though.


Post a reply to this message

From: Dan P
Subject: Re: Lighting
Date: 6 Feb 2004 19:58:37
Message: <4024383d@news.povray.org>
"Felbrigg" <som### [at] microsoftcom> wrote in message
news:4023c200$1@news.povray.org...
> I've hit the end on this scene now.  Not the end of learning by a long
way,
> thanks to everyone, and for those who want it, heres the final cut of the
> code.

Beeeeeeeooootiful!


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.