POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.advanced-users : No reflection for a specific object? Server Time
30 Jul 2024 04:11:13 EDT (-0400)
  No reflection for a specific object? (Message 4 to 13 of 23)  
<<< Previous 3 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: David Fontaine
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 11 Nov 2000 23:19:44
Message: <3A0E1A03.3FEA6199@faricy.net>
Chris Huff wrote:

> "cast_shadow"? You mean "shadowless"? Or was it "no_shadow", I can never
> remember which one is used for light_sources...

The way I remember is that no_shadow is singular but shadowless can be plural.
So no_shadow is for objects and shadowless is for lights.

> I think what you want is the "no_reflection" keyword in
> MegaPOV...standard POV doesn't have special support for this feature,
> you have to trick it by using fancy bounding.

Interesting, I never thought of that. You mean like bound it with a polygon
that from the camera's viewpoint contains the object?

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/


Post a reply to this message

From: David Fontaine
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 11 Nov 2000 23:20:23
Message: <3A0E1A2F.EB049608@faricy.net>
Margus Ramst wrote:

> Specifically, bound the object with very small boxes/spheres near (or around)
> the camera, and any light_sources that you want this object to interact with.

Ah...

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/


Post a reply to this message

From: David Fontaine
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 11 Nov 2000 23:20:53
Message: <3A0E1A4D.7D45F9EB@faricy.net>
David Fontaine wrote:

> > I think what you want is the "no_reflection" keyword in
> > MegaPOV...standard POV doesn't have special support for this feature,
> > you have to trick it by using fancy bounding.
>
> Interesting, I never thought of that. You mean like bound it with a polygon
> that from the camera's viewpoint contains the object?

That's right, I forgot lights...

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/


Post a reply to this message

From: Simon Lemieux
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 01:04:33
Message: <3A0E4122.5E4B6476@yahoo.com>
> Specifically, bound the object with very small boxes/spheres near (or around)
> the camera, and any light_sources that you want this object to interact with.

Interesting, so, will doing these bounding boxes hack make my object appear in
front of the camera but not in the mirror beside it?

Thanks,
	Simon

-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux           | Website : http://www.666Mhz.net  |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+


Post a reply to this message

From: John VanSickle
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 01:12:57
Message: <3A0E366D.7A7D236D@erols.com>
Simon Lemieux wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I was wondering if it was possible to tell an object to cast
> no reflection? Probably much like a "vampire effect" ;) or like the
> media_interaction or cast_shadow in lights... etc...

I think the way to do it is to give it a bounding object that surrounds
the camera viewpoint.  This way the reflected rays miss the bounding
object and cause it to not appear.

object {
  Vampire
  bounded_by { sphere { CameraLocation,.01 } }
}

Rays from the camera will always intersect the sphere, hence the
object will directly appear; but the reflected rays will almost
certainly miss that sphere, causing the object to not appear in the
reflection.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459


Post a reply to this message

From: Simon Lemieux
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 01:55:59
Message: <3A0E4D2F.367F2933@yahoo.com>
> I think the way to do it is to give it a bounding object that surrounds
> the camera viewpoint.  This way the reflected rays miss the bounding
> object and cause it to not appear.
> 
> object {
>   Vampire
>   bounded_by { sphere { CameraLocation,.01 } }
> }
> 
> Rays from the camera will always intersect the sphere, hence the
> object will directly appear; but the reflected rays will almost
> certainly miss that sphere, causing the object to not appear in the
> reflection.

Very interesting!...  But... it doesn't seem to work...

I tried the simplified scene with a white sphere and a mirror, the bounded_by is
set to the camera position, everything seems alright, but I see two spheres...

Do I need any other keywords in order to make this work?

Thanks,
	Simon
-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux           | Website : http://www.666Mhz.net  |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris Huff
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 08:55:20
Message: <chrishuff-53785A.08552912112000@news.povray.org>
In article <3A0E1A03.3FEA6199@faricy.net>, David Fontaine 
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:

> The way I remember is that no_shadow is singular but shadowless can be 
> plural.
> So no_shadow is for objects and shadowless is for lights.

But if you have more than one light, you object has as many shadows as 
you have light sources...


> Interesting, I never thought of that. You mean like bound it with a 
> polygon that from the camera's viewpoint contains the object?

Bound it with a union of spheres or boxes, one around the camera and one 
around each light that you want it to interact with.

-- 
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

From: Chris Huff
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 09:00:08
Message: <chrishuff-959C74.09001812112000@news.povray.org>
In article <3A0E4D2F.367F2933@yahoo.com>, lem### [at] yahoocom wrote:

> Very interesting!...  But... it doesn't seem to work...
> 
> I tried the simplified scene with a white sphere and a mirror, the 
> bounded_by is set to the camera position, everything seems alright, 
> but I see two spheres...
> 
> Do I need any other keywords in order to make this work?

Don't forget the light sources...
Hmm, you probably need to tell POV not to ignore your bounding. On the 
Mac it is just a checkbox, you will probably have to put something in 
your .ini file.
I think it went this way: the earliest versions of POV didn't do 
automatic bounding, so it was all manual. When autobounding was added, 
it sometimes did a better job than manual bounding, so an option to 
override manual bounding was added. I think this option is on in your 
case.

-- 
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

From: Margus Ramst
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 09:54:14
Message: <3A0EAF40.709AAF6C@peak.edu.ee>
Simon Lemieux wrote:
> 
> Interesting, so, will doing these bounding boxes hack make my object appear in
> front of the camera but not in the mirror beside it?
> 

It should, yes.

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg


Post a reply to this message

From: Simon Lemieux
Subject: Re: No reflection for a specific object?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 11:37:54
Message: <3A0ED597.40992B28@yahoo.com>
> Don't forget the light sources...
> Hmm, you probably need to tell POV not to ignore your bounding. On the
> Mac it is just a checkbox, you will probably have to put something in
> your .ini file.
> I think it went this way: the earliest versions of POV didn't do
> automatic bounding, so it was all manual. When autobounding was added,
> it sometimes did a better job than manual bounding, so an option to
> override manual bounding was added. I think this option is on in your
> case.

Did it for the lights, did it for the switch, still doesn't work...

Anyway, I checked this, it shouldn't work anyway, since the very small sphere
will be seen in the other mirror...

try this:

#declare CameraLocation = <0,1,2>
camera {
  location CameraLocation
  look_at <0, 0, -1>
}

// no light source

plane { <0,0,1>, 0 pigment {rgb <1,1,0>} finish {reflection 1}}

sphere { <0,0,1>, 0.5 pigment {rgb 1} finish {ambient 1}

//bounded_by { sphere { CameraLocation ,.1 } }
}


----------

remove the comment before the "bounded_by" and you should get the same image, at
least that's what I got... :/  Is there something else missing?

Thanks,
	Simon

-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux           | Website : http://www.666Mhz.net  |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | POV-Ray, OpenGL, C++ and more... |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 3 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.