Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> granites.inc from 1996 is not officially part of the POV-Ray set of
> include files but I believe it should be part of a larger collection of
> essential include files developed over the years by the users community.
>
> The original code, which I have been able to trace back to 1996, I have
> upgraded to version 3.7+ standards. The result is made available in
> p.b.s-f. The collection set contains:
>
> 1. the original granites.inc file (comments included);
> 2. the upgraded granites21.inc file which provides three versions for
> each granite type (comments included);
> 3. example scene files for each granite type;
> 4. a set of rendered images of each granite type. Two of those are shown
> here.
>
> Comments welcome of course.
>
> --
> Thomas

Hello, only looking at the images so far, and sorry to be nitpicking, but it is
only with hope it would really be a benefit of such discussions? Here is the
thing: I adore the first rawest granite, while i abhore the second :-D ... Let
me quickly add why of course; The rawest one has nice roughness, brilliance
curve / Oren nayar sigma, corresponding to realistic behavior that I intuit
would be consistent in a radiosity scene and to represent what it is meant for.
The polished one however really shows the repetition of procedural texturing too
visibly, to the point that it breaks everything else, which would otherwise of
course work fine for a polished material... Fist thing I would try, to see if it
solves the problem would be to give a bigger scale to the pattern; Or combine
two variants of that pattern with both scales using a third masking /warping
pattern, so that variation seems less homogenous. May be tweaking its color map
to closer match what is found in some photographic reference and have less
contrast in the smaller scale end to cheat that. I assume both version are
supposed to be somewhat matching patterns? the suggested change would not harm
the first image if propagated.

Finally it's not included? I believe some of the current official included
textures are not up to even the one I like less, so is there a legal reason for
not including? otherwise I would still vote for inclusion of both, even as they
are now.


Thanks for asking feedback and sorry to be that pronounced, it's easier to
comment than to do.

Post a reply to this message