BTW, is it just me or anyone else feel like it's easier to add new code and
lighting models into povray rather than writing a povray SDL parser to other
renderers? :P

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Oh, nice, they actually simulate aperture opening shape in the focal blur.


This can be done in POV-Ray too... albeit the long way around.  If you think
about it, all you have to do is use the POV-Ray focal blur with a square
aperture, and add in a physical aperture.  Not a good solution to the problem,
but it does work...  Probably wouldn't be hard to patch into POV-Ray:

Pseudocode:

pick_random_point();
while (point_outside_aperture_shape)
     pick_a_new_point();


Works pretty well, but it didn't get much reaction so I didn't pursue it:

http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.4299dcdc20345e88e702b90a0%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=264259
&toff=1950

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:

> Works pretty well, but it didn't get much reaction so I didn't pursue it:
> 
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.4299dcdc20345e88e702b90a0%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=264259
> &toff=1950

Ahh. I missed this one, nice trick.

Post a reply to this message

yes, very nice!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:41:05 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:39:24 -0500, delle wrote:
> 
>> LuxRender is a Free, Open Source and heavily modified GPL
> 
> Where do we find the source code?
> 
> I use openSUSE, you don't have packages for that distribution.

And in trying the Fedora packages, there are several newer libraries used 
by your pre-compiled binaries that are incompatible with what's installed 
on my system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> OOC... Clearly Crysis has some pretty serious graphics. But is it 
>> *fun* to play?
> 
> dodging the real-time rendering quality discussion by asking about 
> something so irrelevant as the game itself or if it is any fun? ;)

The demo wasn't, for me at least.

Much of the game seems based on the suit you're wearing, and you change 
functions with the suit by holding down the middle mouse button, and 
dragging the mouse.

Nine times out of ten, it simply wouldn't recognize my middle mouse 
button, so I was unable to change functions.  And of course, because 
it's such an advanced piece of software, you can't actually *remap* that 
one button to another key.

I love my keyboard / mouse combo (the MS Wireless Comfort, one of the 
few decent products Microsoft has made), and don't fancy buying a new 
one just to play one game (that won't even run well on my computer).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I've certainly heard people say they thought the effects were rubbish 
> when I thought they were exemplary... the Hulk, for one.

Still frames of "The Hulk" were, in my opinion, excellent.

What killed it for me was the movement (not that I could do any better, 
of course :) ).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Basically yes. Although there are many ways to reduce the amount of
>>  rays needed to achieve certain noise level without affecting
>> "unbiasness". The point is that the rays keep on going without
>> stopping them artificially.
> 
> Right. Well presumably there must be *some* limit on the maximum 
> recursion depth though?


One unbiased way is to do it like this:

R = randomNumber(0...1)

if(R < diffuseProb)
   //Do diffuse stuff and return the traced value;
else
   return 0; //So it got absorbed.

So if diffuseProb is (say) 0.9. You have 10% probability that a ray
stops bouncing anymore. This methods let's you still trace to unlimited
depth without the need to specify max trace depth.

Post a reply to this message

Forgot to say that you then have to weight the non-absorb cases
properly. If absorption probability is 0.1 you have to weight the other
results by dividing them by 0.9. Otherwise the image will be dark.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Being able to get a fast but grainy preview certainly sounds useful in 
> this respect. I guess it depends on just *how* grainy. (I.e., how long 
> it takes for the image to become clear enough to tell if it needs 
> tweaking. Presumably that depends on what the image is...)

I tried it, and in no way can I see the "fast but grainy preview" here 
being better than POV's Mosaic preview (which is comparably fast, but 
has accurate color and lighting immediately).

I do like the lighting in the "final" images, though.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message