Rohan Bernett <rox### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> WITHOUT using a third party addon (like CC's one
> or NKFlare)?

  Why?

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d4518a0@news.povray.org>, "Simon Adameit" <gom### [at] gmxde> 
wrote:

> But imho lensflares aren't caustics but multiple specular reflections of a
> light source.
> So why do you need photons to simulate them?

Most surfaces wouldn't be directly exposed to the light, so they would 
either be in shadow or be getting transmitted light that should have 
been refracted or reflected. Highlights alone won't do the job, they 
will always look as though they come from light directly from the light 
source.

However, I never heard about doing it with photons...my idea of the 
technique was always to put a very small reflection on the lens and make 
a very bright object or a glow at the light position. That would 
simulate all the refraction and reflection and doesn't need photons.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:03:25 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

>However, I never heard about doing it with photons...

I think Ron made one with photons.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
> Rohan Bernett <rox### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > WITHOUT using a third party addon (like CC's one
> > or NKFlare)?
>
>   Why?

Why not? I want to spend time on it, I don't want anyone to think that this isn't
completely work of mine, I want to be proud of it and achieving it will make me feel
godlike...


--
Jonathan.

Post a reply to this message

JRG <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Why not? I want to spend time on it, I don't want anyone to think that this isn't
> completely work of mine, I want to be proud of it and achieving it will make me feel
> godlike...

  Why is it OK to use POV-Ray's internal functions and patterns, and perhaps
even standard include files, but it's not OK to use third-party include
files? What's the difference?
  After all, POV-Ray is not made by you, so you can't say that an image is
completely made by you if it's rendered with POV-Ray.
  Why using one set of features (made by other people) is OK, but using another
set of features (also made by other people) is not?
  I don't understand.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

JRG wrote:
>"Warp" wrote:
>> Rohan Bernett <rox### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> > WITHOUT using a third party addon (like CC's one
>> > or NKFlare)?
>>
>>   Why?
>
>Why not? I want to spend time on it, I don't want anyone to think that this
>isn't completely work of mine, I want to be proud of it and achieving it will
>make me feel godlike...
>
Hear Hear!

--
Rohan _e_ii

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> JRG <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Why not? I want to spend time on it, I don't want anyone to think that
this isn't
> > completely work of mine, I want to be proud of it and achieving it will
make me feel
> > godlike...
>
>   Why is it OK to use POV-Ray's internal functions and patterns, and
perhaps
> even standard include files, but it's not OK to use third-party include
> files? What's the difference?
>   After all, POV-Ray is not made by you, so you can't say that an image is
> completely made by you if it's rendered with POV-Ray.
>   Why using one set of features (made by other people) is OK, but using
another
> set of features (also made by other people) is not?
>   I don't understand.

Good question, no simple answer...
An answer could be: this image can be made with PoV-Ray out-of-the-box, and
I typed everything...

Where to put the line? When is an image completely your? Can you abstract
all the source code you have seen, and that you can copy more or less
consciensouly?
What is the difference between using 3rd party add-ons (effects), 3rd party
model elements (with more or less parameters: doors generators, books
generators, etc.) or 3rd party models (whole building, a vehicle, etc.)?
And if I use a modeler, is it still my image or the modeler's one?...
If I make a beautiful scene, with great sense of composition, harmonious
colors, great pleasure of the eye, but all made with 3rd party add-ons and
models, is it still mine?

For these questions, there is no unique answer. I would answer yes to the
last one. After all, cubists made great works of art from collages.

In the case of Rohan, the difference is the proud of self made scene.
Although by asking help, he somehow blur the purity of his way :-)

Note: I have not this state of mind, and I collect all files that seems
useful on Internet and here :-)

-- #=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=# --
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist
http://jove.prohosting.com/~philho/

Post a reply to this message

>   Why is it OK to use POV-Ray's internal functions and patterns, and
perhaps
> even standard include files, but it's not OK to use third-party include
> files? What's the difference?

I don't think that this is the point.  Sometimes people (myself included)
try to do things just to see if it can be achieved even though they could
easily be faked or done with some type of include or 3rd party software,
etc.  Usually when I do it, it's not necessarily for any practical scene
purposes, but rather academic, to test my POV procedure and coding abilities
and to push the limits of the system.  I have done the lens flare effect in
question using a real lens system with a visible light source and
reflection.  The results are very slow and would never be practical in a
real scene situation, but I do have the satisfaction that I was able to do
it, and more importantly, that POV was able to do it.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Rohan Bernett <rox### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>Why not? I want to spend time on it, I don't want anyone to think that this
>>isn't completely work of mine, I want to be proud of it and achieving it will
>>make me feel godlike...
>>
> Hear Hear!

  Well, POV-Ray itself is not made by you, yet still you use its features.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:56:04 +0300, Peter Popov wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:03:25 -0500, Christopher James Huff
><chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> 
>>However, I never heard about doing it with photons...
> 
> I think Ron made one with photons.

Granted, I'm in a drug-addled state right now (trying to keep this bronchitis
from turning into pneumonia) but I still don't remember doing that...

-- 
#local R=rgb 99;#local P=R-R;#local F=pigment{gradient x}box{0,1pigment{gradient
y pigment_map{[.5F pigment_map{[.3R][.3F color_map{[.15red 99][.15P]}rotate z*45
translate x]}]#local H=pigment{gradient y color_map{[.5P][.5R]}scale 1/3}[.5F
pigment_map{[.3R][.3H][.7H][.7R]}]}}}camera{location.5-3*z}//only my opinions

Post a reply to this message