 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:35:24 +0100, "Andrew Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9 fsnetcouk>
wrote:
> Well, I'd *definitely* like to see the inclusion of HDRI, and subsurface
> scattering if possible. Dunno about the latter, but I think the former is
> possible. Also, am I correct in thinking that there is room for improvement
> still in the radiosity solving section of POV-Ray.. I think I read it
> somewhere on these newsgroups.. although maybe that will have to wait until
> POV-Ray 4.
Yeah to subsurface scattering! You can use media, but if you specifically want to use
a thin, single
layer mesh that has no 'interior', media won't work. Not to mention it being
significantly more
complicated to get right.
Another item would be some sort of adaptive smooth mesh. In general getting any mesh
to look good
require either a rediculous number of triangles or the scene being done at sufficient
distance from the
model to 'hide' the flat surfaces. This and the lack of an easy non-media way to do
subsurface
scattering are the main reasons why models noever look real, unless you are using ones
that are very
high quality (like those produced by companies like Dreamworks). So I have wondered
for a while if
some way could be found to create additional subdivisions and smoothing with triangles
whos surfaces
are nearly parallel to the camera direction and are thus most visible. A more complex
model will always
be better, but being very bad at mesh model building and nearly as bad at post work
needed to clean
up the artifacts. Besides with animation you don't generally have the luxery of
checking every frame of
a long animation. A method that could take a realtively small slice of time to
optimize the parts of a mesh
that contain visible problems would be worth it, especially since it is far less
likely to miss something than
the human doing the post work. ;)
Anyway, there are bound to be new things to keep adding.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some kind of pov-like code-based post-processing scripting language would a
nice addition to pov-ray. Especially for more realistic lens-flares.
Lens flares will be really realistic if the inner camera lens reflections
are simulated properly. But that has nothing to do with post-processing of
images.
--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Some kind of pov-like code-based post-processing scripting language would a
> nice addition to pov-ray. Especially for more realistic lens-flares.
What do you mean "more realistic lens-flares"? I didn't know POV-Ray
supports lens-flares at all.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Yeah to subsurface scattering! You can use media, but if you specifically
> want to use a thin, single layer mesh that has no 'interior', media won't
> work.
Where should your subsurface scattering stop if you have only a single
layer? The clou with subsurface scattering is that there happens something
to your light _below_the_surface_, right? So there has to be a notion of
"inside" and "outside". That's why you need an object with well defined
inside and outside to get this thing working. The "inside" modifies the
light. That's what "media" does. So, using "media" for subsurface scattering
is natural. (However, "media" should be extended to support other scattering
functions.)
A "thin" mesh doesn't make much sense for subsurface scattering. In
particular, if the mesh is infinitely thin. Then you don't have an
"inside" at all!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> Apache <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > Some kind of pov-like code-based post-processing
> > scripting language would a nice addition to pov-ray.
> > Especially for more realistic lens-flares.
>
> What do you mean "more realistic lens-flares"?
> I didn't know POV-Ray supports lens-flares at all.
What do you mean "support"? You can make all kinds of things with POV-Ray
that are not implemented as internal features. That includes lens flares.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Mar 19)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:
> What do you mean "support"? You can make all kinds of things with POV-Ray
> that are not implemented as internal features. That includes lens flares.
If you are talking about the different "lens flare" include files out
there, those are not lens flares. Those are colored discs put on front of
the camera.
A true lens flare would simulate a camera lens and how light behaves with
it. (Something like this *is* possible at least in a limited way, but I don't
think it's very handy. :) )
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:
> > What do you mean "support"? You can make all kinds of things with POV-Ray
> > that are not implemented as internal features. That includes lens flares.
>
> If you are talking about the different "lens flare" include files out
> there, those are not lens flares. Those are colored discs put on front of
> the camera.
> A true lens flare would simulate a camera lens and how light behaves with
> it. (Something like this *is* possible at least in a limited way, but I don't
> think it's very handy. :) )
I recall a thread 3-5 months ago where someone modelled true lens flares
using the photon feature. Don't remember much about it though.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> If you are talking about the different "lens flare"
> include files out there, those are not lens flares.
> Those are colored discs put on front of the camera.
The very concept of ray-tracing is just a faked version of how nature works.
However, it looks nice, so we don't care. The result is what counts.
Likewise with lens-flares. If they look like lens flares, then they *are*
lens flares. I don't see why you define one faked method as being real nut
another as not being real.
> A true lens flare would simulate a camera lens and
> how light behaves with it.
You said the word yourself: "simulate". If it's just a simulation, it's not
real (or "true").
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Mar 19)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:
> The very concept of ray-tracing is just a faked version of how nature works.
> However, it looks nice, so we don't care. The result is what counts.
> Likewise with lens-flares. If they look like lens flares, then they *are*
> lens flares. I don't see why you define one faked method as being real nut
> another as not being real.
There's a difference.
Lighting is based (more or less) in a physical model (eg. the usage of the
cosine as the falloff function for lighting comes from physics). The concept
and implementation of IOR is based on the physical model (the same math
applies). Photon mapping is based in a physical model.
However, faking lens flares with colored discs is in no way based on any
physical model, nor any math from physics is used to make them. They are
just put "somewhere where they look good", without being based on anything.
> You said the word yourself: "simulate". If it's just a simulation, it's not
> real (or "true").
Simulation means (usually numerical) approximation. Since we can't have
infinite accuracy, things have to be approximated and simulated.
However, whether this simulation is based on physical mathematics or
if it's just something "which looks good" but is not based on anything,
makes a big difference.
POV-Ray does not support simulating lens flares. There's no math in POV-Ray
to calculate them. Period.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> POV-Ray does not support simulating lens flares.
> There's no math in POV-Ray to calculate them. Period.
The only one talking about POV-Ray supporting simulating lens flares is you.
Neither Apache nor I used the words "support" or "simulating". I'm simply
saying that you can indeed "make" lens flares in POV-Ray, just like you can
make clouds, fire, bricks, human characters and all other kind of things,
even though they're not "supported" in POV-Ray and can't be "simulated".
If you disagree, feel free to contact Chris Colefax and ask him to rename
his Lens Flare Include File to "Colored Disc Placed In Front Of Camera
Include File". See if he cares.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Mar 19)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
