"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3939c96f@news.povray.org...
| "Chris Huff" wrote:
| > I chose to have upper left be <0,1,0> and lower right
| > be <1,0,0> for all of the filters which use pigments,
| > so it would be easy to control the filter with an
| > image_map(useful for logos, etc). If it is "centered",
| > the image_map has to be translated into position.
|
| But <0,1,0> is *lower* left! See scene in end of message.
|
| > I really didn't even think about camera normals...
| > I think the method I chose is more intuitive and easier
| > to use.
|
| When using image_maps, yes. When using ripples, spherical, boxed, and many
| other patterns, no!
| The normal_in_camera feature and the patterned_blur feature really are very
| much alike, so I think it would be quite natural to make the alignment work
| the same way too.

Just thought I'd chime-in here...
Only just started to get a look at the patterned_blur feature and I'm going to
have to go along with what Rune is saying.  With it not being like the usual
centered patterns and offcenter mapping it does seem to break tradition.
Although, I wonder what people would think of centered maps in pigments,
normals, and height_field instead?  I know it has been wanted by some and not
by others, the reason being how it might or might not be more difficult to
transform a map when a corner isn't at <0,0,0>.
Anyway, it may be early for feedback on this yet, but my bet is many people
will cringe at the prospect of non-centered patterns.

Bob

Post a reply to this message