 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote in message
news:488a6e58@news.povray.org...
> StephenS wrote:
>> "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>>> I'm starting a new thread for the v3.7 example scenes project ...
>> Ok, I've reinstalled POV-Ray 3.7.0.beta27.
>> I'll go step by step in case my method needs fixing.
>> As my first victim, scenes\qtvr\qtvrpanorama.pov from 3.7
>> File states:
>> #version 3.5;
>> global_settings{ assumed_gamma 1.0}
>> //-w384 -h1284 (command line recomended)
>>
>> 1)I run the scene with POV-Ray 3.5
>> 2)I run the scene with POV-Ray 3.7(new output file name)
>> 3)I run the scene with POV-Ray 3.7, removing version and gamma(new output
>> file
>> name)
>>
>> I compare 1 and 2, PaintShopPro/Arithmetic/difference. The resulting
>> image is
>> not blank.
>> I compare 1 and 3, PaintShopPro/Arithmetic/difference. The resulting
>> image is
>> not blank.
>>
>> qtvrpanorama.pov does not render the same.
>> Yikes, now what?
>>
>> Include the updated scene anyways? If it needs fixing, this will be
>> beyond me.
>>
>>
>
> Next is talking about what changes are visible, and figuring out what to
> change to "fix" it. Some differences will be easy, others might not. As a
> group, though, we should be able to get a good many of them.
i think before we get to far ahead of ourselves we should divide up the
examples so we can work without stepping on each others toes. if there are
no objections i'll use the manifest list to evenly divide up those scenes
into managable chunks. i think a good first pass would be to try to render
the scenes and see what goes without any changes. fails/warnings/problems
lets just make notes and move on to the next scene. i think this will pare
down the list and help use identify the problem scenes. as for debugging i
agree with Sabrina that we should be able work through most problems amoung
ourselves. if not, i'm sure that others in the users community will be able
to bail us out. i'll wait a bit for any comments before proceeding in case
either of you have a better idea how to go forward.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
....
>if there are
> no objections i'll use the manifest list to evenly divide up those scenes
> into managable chunks...
Good idea. Use more chunks than people so new people can easly join, or another
chunk can be taken if one is easy(or time permits).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
....
> qtvrpanorama.pov does not render the same.
....
Just for my own curiosity:
~changing the noise generator had little effect
~The scene uses crackle, turbulence is already listed first.
The difference in the 3.7 and 3.5 pictures is from the use of crackle.
Any other suggestions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> "Sabrina Kilian" <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote in message
> news:488a6e58@news.povray.org...
>> StephenS wrote:
>>> "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> I'm starting a new thread for the v3.7 example scenes project ...
>>> Ok, I've reinstalled POV-Ray 3.7.0.beta27.
>>> I'll go step by step in case my method needs fixing.
>>> As my first victim, scenes\qtvr\qtvrpanorama.pov from 3.7
>>> File states:
>>> #version 3.5;
>>> global_settings{ assumed_gamma 1.0}
>>> //-w384 -h1284 (command line recomended)
>>>
>>> 1)I run the scene with POV-Ray 3.5
>>> 2)I run the scene with POV-Ray 3.7(new output file name)
>>> 3)I run the scene with POV-Ray 3.7, removing version and gamma(new output
>>> file
>>> name)
>>>
>>> I compare 1 and 2, PaintShopPro/Arithmetic/difference. The resulting
>>> image is
>>> not blank.
>>> I compare 1 and 3, PaintShopPro/Arithmetic/difference. The resulting
>>> image is
>>> not blank.
>>>
>>> qtvrpanorama.pov does not render the same.
>>> Yikes, now what?
>>>
>>> Include the updated scene anyways? If it needs fixing, this will be
>>> beyond me.
>>>
>>>
>> Next is talking about what changes are visible, and figuring out what to
>> change to "fix" it. Some differences will be easy, others might not. As a
>> group, though, we should be able to get a good many of them.
>
> i think before we get to far ahead of ourselves we should divide up the
> examples so we can work without stepping on each others toes.
I didn't mean it was the next immediate step, just the next thing to do
for that single image.
>if there are
> no objections i'll use the manifest list to evenly divide up those scenes
> into managable chunks. i think a good first pass would be to try to render
> the scenes and see what goes without any changes. fails/warnings/problems
> lets just make notes and move on to the next scene.
That sounds like a good idea to me. I can think of one possible issue.
Certain files in the demo scenes tend to take a lot longer to render. If
memory serves me right, the radiosity ones take more time, in general,
and should be split over multiple chunks.
> i think this will pare
> down the list and help use identify the problem scenes. as for debugging i
> agree with Sabrina that we should be able work through most problems amoung
> ourselves. if not, i'm sure that others in the users community will be able
> to bail us out. i'll wait a bit for any comments before proceeding in case
> either of you have a better idea how to go forward.
>
> Jim
>
>
The last thing we need to agree on might be an ideal image format to
test with. I'm not familiar with the technical differences between Targa
and PNG, could anyone else chime in if we might notice certain
differences that appear in one or the other, or at certain bit depths?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
StephenS wrote:
> qtvrpanorama.pov does not render the same.
It doesn't need to be identical, however we need to evaluate for each image
the reason for the difference. If it's a bug or unimplemented feature, then
please let me know (even if it's a known issue - it will help to have a new
list based on all the sample scenes being tested). If it's simply due to a
difference in the way 3.7 works, we need to evaluate whether or not it
makes the scene no longer relevant.
NB the next beta (out in the next few days) has some improvements which you
may want to be using. I can upload a binary for you (EXE only, I am still
working on the installer) if you want to have access to it immediately.
Please email me if so.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> For MegaPOV i made a script that builds such a page based on the header
> comments in the scene file - a somewhat extended version of what comes
> with the POV-Ray 3.6 Unix version. The result:
>
> http://megapov.inetart.net/samples.html
I think this is a very useful start.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> How about 1024x768 jpg?
Keep in mind all of the images need to go into the distro; it would depend
on the filesize of the combined images as to whether or not we could use
that size. we might want to include smaller images to start off with, and
have an alternate version of the HTML files that link to larger versions
online. Or just include the thumbnails (presuming we use a reasonable size
for these; e.g. 320 width) and always have the large version linked online.
One thing I think would be nice is if we use a smaller thumbnail (e.g. 160
width), and have a larger (e.g. 320 or even 512 pixel width) one become
visible upon mouse hover. Full-size images would all be online in that case.
(Also, if we have an online version, it might be nice to link to it from
the scene source file - if we do that I might add HTML link recognition to
the POVWIN editor).
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The last thing we need to agree on might be an ideal image format to
> test with. I'm not familiar with the technical differences between Targa
> and PNG, could anyone else chime in if we might notice certain
> differences that appear in one or the other, or at certain bit depths?
Either is OK, as both are lossless formats (ie, they should result in
the exact same image).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hola,
I've completed a review of the v3.7 example scenes. A picture is worth a
1000 words so I've attached a pie chart showing the breakdown.
I also wrote a quick shell script to help target potential resourse
bottlenecks. I just produced this stuff so I've not had much time to think
about how to divide it up yet. Any thoughts? Finally I'm wondering if there
is a need to restate what it is we are going to be doing, image file
formats, what AA to use, etc and include it in a single document that we can
all read comment on and agree to before digging in. I'd hate to be halfway
through and find out that "Hey!!!! that's not what we agreed on!"
If I'm not stepping on any toes I'll commit to pulling togeather a mission
statement. I think this is may be the final piece before proceeding. Shout
if you don't agree!
This are the strings I looked for:
isosurface {
scattering {
radiosity {
These files have isosurfaces:
./advanced/abyss.pov
./advanced/benchmark.pov
./advanced/biscuit.pov
./advanced/isocacti.pov
./advanced/landscape.pov
./advanced/optics.pov
./incdemo/i_internal.pov
./language/trace2.pov
./objects/isosurfaces.pov
./portfolio/allobjects.pov
./portfolio/allpat1iso.pov
./portfolio/allpat2iso.pov
./textures/patterns/crackle2.pov
./textures/patterns/crackle3.pov
./textures/patterns/crackle_form.pov
These files have scattering media:
./advanced/abyss.pov
./advanced/benchmark.pov
./advanced/mediasky.pov
./advanced/optics.pov
./interior/media/galaxy.pov
./interior/media/media1.pov
./interior/media/media2.pov
./interior/media/media3.pov
The files have radiosity:
./advanced/benchmark.pov
./advanced/gaussianblob.pov
./advanced/object_pattern.pov
./animations/raddem/raddem.pov
./radiosity/patio-radio.pov
./radiosity/radiosity.pov
./radiosity/radiosity2.pov
./radiosity/radiosity3.pov
./radiosity/rad_def_test.pov
Cheers Jim
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'scene-files.jpg' (138 KB)
Preview of image 'scene-files.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
> Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> How about 1024x768 jpg?
>
> Keep in mind all of the images need to go into the distro; it would depend
> on the filesize of the combined images as to whether or not we could use
> that size. we might want to include smaller images to start off with, and
> have an alternate version of the HTML files that link to larger versions
> online. Or just include the thumbnails (presuming we use a reasonable size
> for these; e.g. 320 width) and always have the large version linked
> online.
>
> One thing I think would be nice is if we use a smaller thumbnail (e.g. 160
> width), and have a larger (e.g. 320 or even 512 pixel width) one become
> visible upon mouse hover. Full-size images would all be online in that
> case.
Do the same as for the Insert menu. Put small images in the package and have
an automatic way to re-render them at a bigger size.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
