 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
By popular request, I've moced this from bugreports into New Users.
Original thread:
http://news.povray.org/povray.bugreports/thread/%3Cweb.4dce72ab715ba47a6731f09e0%40news.povray.org%3E/
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> I'm afraid to say this, but: No. The texture is what makes the
> difference. The default is pitch black, so unless you specify anything
> else that's exactly what you get.
>
> You can change the default though, by specifying a texture in the
> #default statement.
>
> Try
>
> texture { pigment { color rgb <1.0,1.0,1.0> } }
>
> for starters.
>
> (Maybe you also want to read the tutorial section of the Fine Manual ;-))
So when I used color Blue in the sphere definition, that's not enough? It was
before.
Oh and about the light source being right behind the camera, when I fixed that
(see the current version of bollen-1.pov: I went from <0,0,-10000.0> to
<20,10,-10.0>, in all respects that's not behind the camera, nor straight in
front of it) the pov still rendered only a 2-tone image.
why does http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-1.pov render like
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-1.jpg (in flat B&W)? (and
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-01.pov renders like
http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-01.jpg
If someone could render the pocs I mentioned
If someone could render the povs I mentioned in
http://news.povray.org/web.4dd0da04d007ae226731f09e0%40news.povray.org
and produce a nice blue ball preferably with the letters "iB" cut out of it (I
probably have made a posirtioning error in my pov, the letters could very well
be inside the sphere now, so the difference-stmt is useless.) that would be very
much appreciated, and then I could look in to it, and see the error of my ways.
Because until now, I have the idea that people are not reading (or rendering
temselves) the povs I posted, or reading the posts I made, instead everyone is
just by default telling me to read the manual, when if I make the changes
sugegsted by the users (while copying the camera + light stmts from povs which
*did* render properly) and this is not getting me anywhere. I hate to complain
at people voluntarily spending time and effort into helping me, so I think that
if anyone would edit my pov and make it work, then send it to me, that would be
more constructive than this to-ing and fro-ing.
(Sorry about the rant!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So when I used color Blue in the sphere definition, that's not enough? It was
> before.
I'm not sure about that syntax, it seems unusual but might
work accidentally in some case. Although I couldn't say if
it should have been valid for #version 3.5, in which case
this might indicate a downward compatibility issue.
> Oh and about the light source being right behind the camera, when I fixed that
> (see the current version of bollen-1.pov: I went from <0,0,-10000.0> to
> <20,10,-10.0>, in all respects that's not behind the camera, nor straight in
> front of it) the pov still rendered only a 2-tone image.
Behind the camera is not a problem, but if light source and
camera are on opposite sides of the object you see no or almost
no lighting (think "New Moon").
Correcting both issues in your original bollen-1.pov, i.e.
light_source: from <0.0,0.0,-10000.0> to <0.0,0.0,10000.0>
sphere: color Blue to pigment {color Blue}
yields a sphere that shows up with a blue center (fading
into dark blue / black near the rim due to shading, which
looks very black against the white background).
> If someone could render the povs I mentioned
You're making this extra hard for everyone by using
two includes file for your two sample scenes, and only
posting the link to the pov (and as an afterthough in
another post a link to one of the two include files).
But to actually render bollen-1.pov I had to guess
the URL assuming it also had an include file posted.
Zip files are good, and simplified short one-file
sample scenes are even much better.
> just by default telling me to read the manual
because you obviously haven't done so, and it will save
you and us a lot of time if you do this first. This assumes
you are interesting in learning and using povray, in which case
ou should write less convoluted test scenes by hand to narrow
down the problem and make it easier pose an exact question.
On the other hand, you might not wish to be a povray user
but an Art of Illusion user, in which case the problem is:
Why doesn't the povray export result in something that
renders from what you create in Art of Illusion. Then you
are in the wrong place to ask questions here, rather you
should contact the authors of the export plugin.
On this it also depends how to proceed if you desire
further assistance in creating a special shape such as
a ball with letters cut out ... do you wish to model it
in some software and use povray as backend, or do you
wish to learn how povray does it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/17/2011 05:33 AM, Marco wrote:
> Because until now, I have the idea that people are not reading (or rendering
> temselves) the povs I posted, or reading the posts I made, instead everyone is
> just by default telling me to read the manual
ok ... now for a rant of my own.
sorry if my style of referring you to the documentation doesn't suit ...
for me i learn by doing it myself rather than getting someone to do it
for me as you seem to be asking. povray is indeed a learning experience,
and by all appearances you don't want to learn ... you just want an
image. simplify things and go through the basic mechanics of
transforming the light source, camera and objects before moving onto
something more complicated ... walk before you run (that is why you are
stumbling so much) have you even tried my suggestion for camera
placement? it also works for light source as well. that way you can play
with different transforms and see the effect that lighting and camera
position has on your object. yes i've read your posts. they are rambling
and full of typos, hard to follow. you're not very organized. we're
living in an instant gratification society it would seem ... no one
whats to take the time to learn anything anymore ... it's all about
results NOW!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> By popular request, I've moced this from bugreports into New Users.
Perhaps people has a reason to ask for it... :)
>> Try
>>
>> texture { pigment { color rgb<1.0,1.0,1.0> } }
>>
>> for starters.
>>
>> (Maybe you also want to read the tutorial section of the Fine
>> Manual ;-))
>
> So when I used color Blue in the sphere definition, that's not
> enough? It was before.
No, the "color Blue" statement is not on that sphere... it is on the
sphere inside the difference declared as "hollebollegijs", which indeed
is never used on the scene: look again at your own code...
> Oh and about the light source being right behind the camera, when I
> fixed that (see the current version of bollen-1.pov: I went from
> <0,0,-10000.0> to <20,10,-10.0>, in all respects that's not behind
> the camera, nor straight in front of it) the pov still rendered only
> a 2-tone image. why does http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-1.pov
> render like http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-1.jpg (in flat B&W)?
> (and http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-01.pov renders like
> http://home.ooijer.com/hsp/bollen-01.jpg
Look, bollen-1.pov still has the light at <0.0,0.0,-10000.0>, while the
camera is at <0.0,0.0,20.0>, and the sphere is <0,0,2>, so logically you
can only see the unlighted side of the sphere against the white
background.
On bollen-01.pov you changed the background to black, and the light
position to <0.0,0.0,10000.0>, so now you are lighting the visible side
of the sphere, tough the light is very faint and distant, so it's
dark... again logical with respect to your scene setup.
> if anyone would edit my pov and make it work, then send it to me,
> that would be more constructive than this to-ing and fro-ing.
I don't see how that would be constructive at all... it would help you
getting this done, but nothing more. You will learn nothing, because you
will not see in other's code what you are not seeing on your own code.
The most constructive thing for you will be to follow the "beginning
tutorial" on the docs, because then you could easily figure out the
solutions to all of your current problems, or at least understand the
explanations offered by others.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.05.2011 10:33, schrieb Marco:
> So when I used color Blue in the sphere definition, that's not enough? It was
> before.
Had yet another closer look at your bollen-02.pov scene:
- The blue sphere is #declare'd but never actually used;
- The red sphere is hidden inside "sphere 2", which does not have a
color statement and is therefore black.
> If someone could render the povs I mentioned in
> http://news.povray.org/web.4dd0da04d007ae226731f09e0%40news.povray.org
> and produce a nice blue ball preferably with the letters "iB" cut out of it (I
> probably have made a posirtioning error in my pov, the letters could very well
> be inside the sphere now, so the difference-stmt is useless.) that would be very
> much appreciated, and then I could look in to it, and see the error of my ways.
You apparently /do/ have such a thing already: It's called
bollen-01.pov. Okay, the sphere is not blue, but it should be easy to
make it. Have a look at the differences (/all/ the differences) and
learn from them.
> Because until now, I have the idea that people are not reading (or rendering
> temselves) the povs I posted, or reading the posts I made, instead everyone is
> just by default telling me to read the manual, when if I make the changes
> sugegsted by the users (while copying the camera + light stmts from povs which
> *did* render properly) and this is not getting me anywhere. I hate to complain
> at people voluntarily spending time and effort into helping me, so I think that
> if anyone would edit my pov and make it work, then send it to me, that would be
> more constructive than this to-ing and fro-ing.
To be honest, it is rare to see so many "queerities" in a single simple
scene as yours; obviously you did not read the replies, or did not heed
the advices given: A pretty common suggestion was to RTFM, so please let
me reiterate: Do yourself a favor and work through the basic tutorials
in the docs. The scenes in there are a much cleaner starting point than
anything you have so far.
> (Sorry about the rant!)
(If you were sincerely sorry about the rant, why did you press the
"send" button?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
