On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 20:47:00 -0700, Ken wrote:
>I don't recall if Pov v3.0 allowed light settings
>higher that one but you can in pov v3.1 have a light source with a much
>brighter light that you could in say v2.2 by using values like the following
>example:

v2.2 allowed components higher than one.  I'm not aware of any version
that didn't, but I really got started with POV again in 2.2.  The only
version I'd used before that was too long ago to remember.

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : light_source { <-100, 100, -100> color rgb<10,10,10> }
> 
>   I prefer the shorter version:
> 
>   light_source { <-1, 1, -1>*100, 10 }

I prefer the shorter version too but after looking at the source provided
I opted for consistancy of syntax rather that yeilding to the temptation
of inserting my own style :)

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 20:47:00 -0700, Ken wrote:
> >I don't recall if Pov v3.0 allowed light settings
> >higher that one but you can in pov v3.1 have a light source with a much
> >brighter light that you could in say v2.2 by using values like the following
> >example:
> 
> v2.2 allowed components higher than one.  I'm not aware of any version
> that didn't, but I really got started with POV again in 2.2.  The only
> version I'd used before that was too long ago to remember.

This may have been true but I did not know about it because the v2.2 docs do
not mention that it is possible and I picked up on the idea here in these
news groups. Just doing my part to pass on what is not intuitively obvious
to everyone.

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:21:24 -0700, Ken wrote:
>
>
>Ron Parker wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 20:47:00 -0700, Ken wrote:
>> >I don't recall if Pov v3.0 allowed light settings
>> >higher that one but you can in pov v3.1 have a light source with a much
>> >brighter light that you could in say v2.2 by using values like the following
>> >example:
>> 
>> v2.2 allowed components higher than one.  I'm not aware of any version
>> that didn't, but I really got started with POV again in 2.2.  The only
>> version I'd used before that was too long ago to remember.
>
>This may have been true but I did not know about it because the v2.2 docs do
>not mention that it is possible and I picked up on the idea here in these
>news groups. Just doing my part to pass on what is not intuitively obvious
>to everyone.

Of course.  I don't begrudge you that.  I'm just doing my part to tell
both people who are still using 2.2 that they can use big components 
too. :)

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:21:24 -0700, Ken wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ron Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 20:47:00 -0700, Ken wrote:
> >> >I don't recall if Pov v3.0 allowed light settings
> >> >higher that one but you can in pov v3.1 have a light source with a much
> >> >brighter light that you could in say v2.2 by using values like the following
> >> >example:
> >>
> >> v2.2 allowed components higher than one.  I'm not aware of any version
> >> that didn't, but I really got started with POV again in 2.2.  The only
> >> version I'd used before that was too long ago to remember.
> >
> >This may have been true but I did not know about it because the v2.2 docs do
> >not mention that it is possible and I picked up on the idea here in these
> >news groups. Just doing my part to pass on what is not intuitively obvious
> >to everyone.
> 
> Of course.  I don't begrudge you that.  I'm just doing my part to tell
> both people who are still using 2.2 that they can use big components
> too. :)

  Ok I can accept that... I think :)

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

Dear Ken and Nieminen and Ken and others,

Thanks for the replies to my questions.  This is my very first participation in any
news groups so I am just learning the protocols of posting.  Thanks for the advice.

I had a feeling that the lighting problems might have something to do with the surface
textures and finishes.  I will continue the tweaking process and will let you all know
what I come up with.

About upgrading my POV version:  I have been saving money, scrounging old equipment,
trading labor for computer tech help for two years.  Tomorrow, by some cosmic
coincidence, I will recieve my first Pentium I mother board, a new larger HD and the
long-awaited upgrade to WIN 95.  So today I plan to download the newest POV for
Windows.  My hesitation to go to POV-Win was "I don't want to rewrite, re-render all
these scenes again!" but the forces of the Gods of Upgrades have now spoken.

Blessings,
   Brendan
--
Michael Brendan Hurley           ShadowDancerEnterprizes, LTD.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Network/4969/
http://www.saber.net/~mbhcgc/
mbh### [at] sabernet

Post a reply to this message

Brendan Hurley <mbh### [at] sabernet> wrote:
: My hesitation to go to POV-Win was "I don't want to rewrite, re-render all
: these scenes again!"

  Why would you have to rewrite all your scenes?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:

>   Why would you have to rewrite all your scenes?...< for a newer version of
> POV >

I made a false assumption that old scripts might not work in newer version POV.
Switching from POV 1.0 to 3.0 involved a 1-2 month detour in my work.  I had
just started designing object { Our_House } in POV 1.0.  Naturally I was amazed
with the new features of 3.0, such as area_lights, so I wanted to use them.  The
rewriting wasn't really that hard but it was incredibily time-consuming.  My
statement above was just an expression of reluctance to take another coding
detour.

 { Our_House } is nearing completion; I want to upgrade to the newest POV
version and start a new project at the same time.  The other issue is I'm also
upgrading to a Pentium motherboard and Win95 right now.  Too many transitions at
one time is to be approached with caution.

In the few days since I posted this Help! message I have tried out some of the
suggestions and they are working.  I have cylinder lights above the front door;
they cast cones of illumination down the walls and on the ground. The scene is
coming along!
Thanks to all of you again!

Not every change in the lighting code is a positive one, but the scene looks a
lot more like the image in my mind. I upped ambient, defuse; I added Atmosphere2
and tweaked the variables a little.  When I'm done (next week? two weeks?) I'll
post an image to the scenes board and the scripts here and on my web site.

Blessings,
    Brendan

--
Michael Brendan Hurley           ShadowDancerEnterprizes, LTD.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Network/4969/index.html
http://www.saber.net/~mbhcgc/index.shtml
mbh### [at] sabernet

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (2 KB)

Brendan Hurley wrote:

> Dear folks,
> I've been using POV since '92; I've rendered more than a hundred
> scenes.  But the one area that I have made almost no progress in is
> cool, realistic lighting.  

	To be honest with you, I have tried do realistic lightning since
about 1981 so good luck to you. 

	It is very like clouds. Everyone knows they can look like almost
anything but everyone knows what they do not look like. The same
with lightning. 

	I have tried to model local potentials as pathways. It did not
work.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)

On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 12:11:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------91B61DE8E731FA383AE3F11A
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Brendan Hurley wrote:
>
>> Dear folks,
>> I've been using POV since '92; I've rendered more than a hundred
>> scenes.  But the one area that I have made almost no progress in is
>> cool, realistic lighting.  
>
>	To be honest with you, I have tried do realistic lightning since
>about 1981 so good luck to you. 

Heh.  lighting != lightning.  But both are difficult. :)

Post a reply to this message