 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:22:19 +0000, Mike Williams <mik### [at] nospam please> wrote:
Perhaps your missed discussions about old bugreports
http://news.povray.org/u12outsm2kso3k5ef4lp26ogm5cvsm46ge@4ax.com
http://news.povray.org/3BEBEB4C.CA854309@pacbell.net
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:14:38 +0100, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> Black outline in smooth meshes
>> (The outline of smooth meshes exhibit black dots or areas (which go away
>> with double_illuminate))
>> http://news.povray.org/
>
> Where is the post?
From: "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
Subject: Black outline in smooth meshes
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:52:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3bf6794e$1@news.povray.org>
Xref: news.povray.org povray.beta-test:2844
--
#local R=<7084844682857967,0787982,826975826580>;#macro L(P)concat(#while(P)chr(
mod(P,100)),#local P=P/100;#end"")#end background{rgb 1}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.y)0,0
translate<-.8,0,-1>}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.z)0,0translate<-1.6,-.75,-1>}sphere{z/9e3
4/26/2001finish{reflection 1}}//ron.parker@povray.org My opinions, nobody else's
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Thorsten Froehlich who wrote:
>> Black outline in smooth meshes
>> (The outline of smooth meshes exhibit black dots or areas (which go away
>> with double_illuminate))
>> http://news.povray.org/
>
>Where is the post?
Oops.
http://news.povray.org/3bf6794e$1@news.povray.org
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anders K." <and### [at] f2scom> wrote in message
news:3bfbcc92$1@news.povray.org...
> > > Camera is off by half a pixel
> >
> > Not to start a flame war or anything but does it really matter ?
>
I have to also say that it does matter (In my opinion). It really makes a
difference if you are trying to make seamlessly tiling pictures using the
orthographic camera. Please fix it, pretty please.
Quadhall
tre### [at] ww-interlinknet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:39:53 -0500, "QuadHall"
<tre### [at] ww-interlinknet> wrote:
>
>"Anders K." <and### [at] f2scom> wrote in message
>news:3bfbcc92$1@news.povray.org...
>> > > Camera is off by half a pixel
>> >
>> > Not to start a flame war or anything but does it really matter ?
>>
>I have to also say that it does matter (In my opinion). It really makes a
>difference if you are trying to make seamlessly tiling pictures using the
>orthographic camera. Please fix it, pretty please.
I also find this a problem. If you need encouragement, then yes,
please fix this.
Thanks,
Glen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:48:21 -0500, "Anders K." <and### [at] f2scom>
wrote:
>> > Camera is off by half a pixel
>>
>> Not to start a flame war or anything but does it really matter ?
>
>Yes. At least me and John VanSickle have been annoyed by it. It's a problem,
>for example, when you try to make a box that fits exactly within the
>camera's view. Go to Insert > Scene templates > Orthographic scene, which
>attempts to do exactly that. Add background { red 1 } or something to make
>the background visible, and render the scene with antialiasing on. You'll
>see a thin red line down the left and bottom of the image. (If you don't add
>the red background there will be a thin black line instead, which is less
>noticable in the render window but still a problem.)
>
>Anders
>
>
>
Just tried this (beta 7, Windows ME (yes, I finally
replaced my Amiga)) and can verify that the effect exists. I
created the scene as described above and rendered it at 320x240,
512x384, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x1024. I even rendered it to
a square, at 512x512. In all cases, there was no red with
AA off but with AA method 1 and AA method 2, there was red on
the left edge and on the bottom edge.
I then tried povray 3.1 (I was running v3.1 and v3.5 at
the same time, rendering the same file, how cool is that?) and
the effect did not happen! No red!
What is odd is that I sort of remember the problem
existing wayyyyy back in the day, in DKB render!
Very odd.
Could it be a floating point error as a result of
switching to a different c compiler?
Pete
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nospam scribis news:3c01ac70.16273891@localhost:
> yes, I finally replaced my Amiga
I am sorry to hear that. I have fond memories of my old
Amiga 2000.
--
Gis poste, Arto.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Anders K
Subject: Re: 1 pixel problem (was Re: Known bugs 21 Nov 2001)
Date: 26 Nov 2001 09:45:31
Message: <3c02558b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In all cases, there was no red with
> AA off but with AA method 1 and AA method 2, there was red on
> the left edge and on the bottom edge.
With AA off, the camera is still shifted by 1/2 pixel; you just don't see
any red since the camera rays still end up on the box.
> I then tried povray 3.1 (I was running v3.1 and v3.5 at
> the same time, rendering the same file, how cool is that?) and
> the effect did not happen! No red!
That's because the AA threshold is playing tricks on you. Try +am2 or +a0.0
and you'll see that the problem is still there.
> Could it be a floating point error as a result of
> switching to a different c compiler?
No. I've looked at the 3.1 source, and the problem is a bug in the code. See
my earlier thread about this bug:
http://news.povray.org/3bccc696@news.povray.org
Anders
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:46:40 -0500, "Anders K." <and### [at] f2scom>
wrote:
>With AA off, the camera is still shifted by 1/2 pixel; you just don't see
>any red since the camera rays still end up on the box.
>
Ok.
>> Could it be a floating point error as a result of
>> switching to a different c compiler?
>
>No. I've looked at the 3.1 source, and the problem is a bug in the code. See
>my earlier thread about this bug:
>http://news.povray.org/3bccc696@news.povray.org
>
Ok. I didn't know.
Well, at any rate, I do agree with you that it is an
annoyance and hopefully it can be fixed.
Pete
p.s.
Don't know if this is related to the 1 pixel camera bug
or not, but if you take an image map and map it to a rectangle
that is the same size/position, the very top of the reactangle
shows the bottom line of the image. This one goes back to DKB
render but I was never sure if it was a real bug or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2001 03:42:17 -0500, Arthur Flint <mra### [at] chesapeakenet>
wrote:
>nospam scribis news:3c01ac70.16273891@localhost:
>> yes, I finally replaced my Amiga
>
>I am sorry to hear that. I have fond memories of my old
>Amiga 2000.
>
>--
>Gis poste, Arto.
I do miss my 'miggy, but I *had* to replace it.
I needed to be able to run v3.5, and to do iso-surfaces.
I wanted to not have to take renders to work to finish
them! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
