great! that's a promising reply!

the thing with the low resolution of the df3 is probably ok, because it ads
the added luxury of being able to choose how fine you -need- it.
Most of the low res detail from the df3 could be overcome by using more
detailed textures in the pattern.
Another idea i had, a little excessive but would look great for stills, is
using eval_pigment() to place geometric dust and crust in the cracks. I'll
keep that in mind when i have a go at the df3.

Is the main memory hit with df3's just the fact that it's a volume? (ie
x*y*z values) I wonder how you could make a df3 optimised for use only on
surfaces.. There must be so much data going to waste (ie all voxels that
don't coincide with a shaded surafce) ...

BTW, i really like the idea of being able to blur patterns; i appreciate you
efforts! How's it going, anyway?

benp

Chris Huff wrote:

> In article <3AA81D21.51EE56D4@rsp.com.au>, Ben Paschke
> <ben### [at] rspcomau> wrote:
>
> > I've just had the thought (with all the other df3 discussions going
> > on) that i could create a patina df3 file from the proximity pattern
> > and use that instead.
> > That is, if it proves to be any faster at all ...
>
> That should be a lot faster rendering, and a lot smoother, but you will
> get slightly uneven effects because of the lower resolution of the df3
> voxels. The image I posted a while ago showing the method of smoothly
> blurring patterns that I'm working on shows this kind of artifact. Also,
> you may need a lot of memory to get a high enough resolution...
> Try it, the results might be useful...I think you can just fill an array
> with proximity data computed using the eval_pattern() function, and use
> that as the density data.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff
> Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
> TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
>
> <><

Post a reply to this message