|
 |
To be precise (because I didn't say that povray is good and
Megapov is not good, because I haven't check this :)):
I said:
> The absolute size of an object has no importance! Only
> the relative size between object is important. If you scale a complete
> scene by a factor x and if you change the camera in the good way, you
> must
> notice that nothing has changed, you must obtain the same scene, the
> same image.
I didn't check yet but if MegaPov do this and not Povray so MegaPov is
the good one :)!
Fabian.
Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastas cstutfi> wrote ...
> > Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
> > : Hmmm... you'll have to mess with the 'accuracy' to get that second image
> to
> > : sharpen up. Then it will look the way you want it to.
> >
> > This 'accuracy' keyword is new to me. What does it do?
>
> Time to look at the documentation. ;-)
> (It adjusts the coarseness of the points used to estimate the gradient of
> the pattern which is used to determine the normal.)
>
> > If I scale an object 5 times larger and move the camera and light source
> > 5 times farther, I would expect to get the exact same image.
>
> Yes. I agree. That is the reason it needs to be fixed.
>
> > It would be this way if it was a heightfield instead of a normal
> modifier.
> > Thus I would expect the normal modifier to behave like a heightfield. What
> > you are doing is changing the slope of the normal modifier when scaling.
> > With a heighfield the slope doesn't change if we scale it uniformly.
> > So I think that povray's default behaviour is the correct one.
>
> Unfortunately, no. The official POV-Ray will at times fail at what you want
> it to do. See my post in text.scene-files for a demonstration. MegaPov
> will act in the way you describe.
> (followups to povray.unofficial.patches)
>
> Anyway, in the next MegaPov you will be able to use #version 3.1 to attain
> backwards compatibility in this area (as well as with layered textures).
>
> -Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
