On 12-3-2012 3:40, clipka wrote:
> Am 14.02.2012 08:53, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 14-2-2012 1:13, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 13.02.2012 13:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>> I am still not sure about whether the bump sizes should be positive or
>>>> negative. I find positive values looking better in general but that
>>>> might be a wrong approach.
>>>
>>> Don't worry about it: You can't get it right anyway, due to a known
>>> problem with POV-Ray's implementation of UV-mapped image-based bump
>>> maps. Unfortunately, fixing it isn't exactly trivial.
>>
>> Ah? Interesting to hear this. I hope (I know!) you will find a solution.
>
> I'm currently looking into this once again. Seems like there are
> actually two more-or-less independent design flaws contributing to this,
> one of which affects even non-UV-mapped bump maps.

Excellent! I mean, you looking into the matter ;-)
>
> And then tnere's another one, that has gone unnoticed so far: Did you
> know that if you use a low-resolution bump map for testing, you'll get
> stronger bumps than in the final render?

Well, I may have noticed but not consciously really.

>
> This also means that if I sort out all the problems, I'm guaranteed to
> break each and every existing scene that uses bump maps. Yuck!

Who cares? :-) I am quite willing to redo everything as long as 
henceforward everything works better.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message