|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's working (ish) with the objects. I have a sky sphere and want to fade
that too....
#local p_image=
pigment{
image_map{
jpeg SkySphere
map_type 1
interpolate 2
}
}
#local p_image_filtered=
pigment{
image_map{
jpeg SkySphere
map_type 1
interpolate 2
filter all light_filter
}
}
Any suggestions how I coul re-work this?
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:s4vi53dqvcjldjegnql3i21nrok4kd3gnh@4ax.com...
> On 27 May 2007 07:50:29 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>>Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>>> Remember to "Merge" any object that you are going to fade out to get rid
>>> of
>>> internal surfaces. Help - 3.4.6.5 Merge
>>
>> Note that merge only removes the surfaces inside the object. It doesn't
>>make the inner side of the outer surfaces invisible. This may or may not
>>become a problem, depending on the effect you want to achieve.
>
> A good point. That probably explains a few of my failures.
>
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Simon" <povray@*NOSPAM*SOWare.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:4658ad5a@news.povray.org...
> Hi all,
>
> wonder if someone can point me in the right direction for how to fade an
> object into/out of visibility.
>
> I can do rgbt and modify the t but have some complex (for me) objects so
> not
> sure how to do it for the whole union'd object rather than on a
> per-pigment
> basis. Ideally I just want to change what % of light rays passing through
> the volume of the objects are affected by them
>
> Sorry if that was a tad unclear - Any help greatly appreciated
>
Hi Simon,
I think that instead of union {}, you should use merge{}probably because
otherwise, by making the (collection) of objects transparent, you will see
the inner limits of the individual objects constituting the union. Merge is
specific for transparent objects.
Now concerning your question, if each constituent object has its own
pigment, I would make a #declare T = yourvalue; and use that in every
pigment inside the union/merge block. If the union/merge block has only one
pigment, then it is much easier of course :-)
I hope this answers your question. Post an image in p.b.i. if in doubt.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:41:24 +0100, "Simon" <povray@*NOSPAM*SOWare.co.uk> wrote:
>It's working (ish) with the objects. I have a sky sphere and want to fade
>that too....
I've never obtained satisfactory results when trying to fade an object. So I
might not be the best person to help you further. :-(
But I've just checked this and it looks like Pov can only use one sky_sphere.
The last in the scene is the one it uses.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry, I should've been more clear - I'm actually just using a real sphere
with various lighting effecets to light my scene - so whilst it is
technically a sky sphere, it's not done the way POV usually would - I'm
trying to get a natural lighting effect (as per a seminar I saw by Paul
Debevec). Results have been quite good (I've posted a vid in p.b.a if you're
interested)
The Sky declaration is:
union{
sphere{0,5
hollow no_shadow
texture{
pigment{
function{fp(x,y,z).gray}
poly_wave light_exponent
color_map{
[0.0 rgb 0]
[1.0 rgb light_ambient]
}
}
finish { ambient light_ambient diffuse 0 }
}
}
sphere{0,4.999
hollow no_shadow
texture{
pigment{p_image_filtered}
finish { ambient light_ambient diffuse 0 }
}
}
}
(I hasten to add that this is not my code - I grabbed it online. Am not 100%
sure where from but will find it if anyone wants to know)
Thanks for any help you can give Stephen :)
-Simon
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:5iaj539kp36u1urgbqo3th2pgbv7lf2u5a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:41:24 +0100, "Simon" <povray@*NOSPAM*SOWare.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>It's working (ish) with the objects. I have a sky sphere and want to fade
>>that too....
>
> I've never obtained satisfactory results when trying to fade an object. So
> I
> might not be the best person to help you further. :-(
> But I've just checked this and it looks like Pov can only use one
> sky_sphere.
> The last in the scene is the one it uses.
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The Sky declaration is:
>
> union{
> sphere{0,5
> hollow no_shadow
> texture{
> pigment{
> function{fp(x,y,z).gray}
> poly_wave light_exponent
> color_map{
> [0.0 rgb 0]
> [1.0 rgb light_ambient]
> }
> }
> finish { ambient light_ambient diffuse 0 }
> }
> }
> sphere{0,4.999
> hollow no_shadow
> texture{
> pigment{p_image_filtered}
> finish { ambient light_ambient diffuse 0 }
> }
> }
> }
Have the inner sphere become increasingly transparent to reveal the
outer sphere.
If p_image_filtered is a texture declared in Pov, you can add change the
transmit value of the colors as mentioned earlier in the thread.
If it's an image, you can use the transmit bitmap modifier, described here:
http://povray.org/documentation/view/3.6.1/337/
(While I was looking that up, I accidentally ran across the
interior_texture option. I didn't know about that--it looks really useful!)
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you actually contemplate
spending $$$ at a printing bureau to litho some of your raytraces for
your non-computer-literate relatives.
George Erhard
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message
news:465a1a93$1@news.povray.org...
> If it's an image, you can use the transmit bitmap modifier, described
> here:
> http://povray.org/documentation/view/3.6.1/337/
Thanks so much, that was exactly what I was looking for! Between you and
Stephen, I've got my answer. Thank you all so much!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:46597085@news.povray.org...
> A completely transparent interior_texture might be worth a try if you
> want to make the inner sides invisible.
Thanks for that Warp, I was getting a problem where: If the object passed
behind itself while transparent, It is visible even is the transparency
should be 100% - I think this may fix it...
Thanks again,
S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon <povray@*nospam*soware.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for that Warp, I was getting a problem where: If the object passed
> behind itself while transparent, It is visible even is the transparency
> should be 100% - I think this may fix it...
That may have more to do with max_trace_level.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(excuse me while I go kick myself a few times)
It may well do. I reduced max_trace so I could get some test renderings done
with positioning - and never set it back up before moving on. As I've never
used transparency before, I assumed I was making a mistake there.
Thanks Warp.
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:465ad45f@news.povray.org...
> Simon <povray@*nospam*soware.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thanks for that Warp, I was getting a problem where: If the object passed
>> behind itself while transparent, It is visible even is the transparency
>> should be 100% - I think this may fix it...
>
> That may have more to do with max_trace_level.
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon wrote:
> (excuse me while I go kick myself a few times)
>
> It may well do. I reduced max_trace so I could get some test renderings done
> with positioning - and never set it back up before moving on. As I've never
> used transparency before, I assumed I was making a mistake there.
I've certainly made max_trace_level mistakes myself.
I remember posting one image here with the comment that I might need to
go back and make some of the shapes slightly lighter and less opaque.
Someone pointed out that had nothing to do with it--it was
max_trace_level. :-P
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you've tried rendering
hair with each strand as an object.
Quietly Watching
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |