 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a13385f$1@news.povray.org>, "Adam Roben" <yod### [at] home com>
wrote:
> Now, I may be completely off-base on this, but it seems to me that
> there is a much simpler way to do this than using no_image, etc. Put
> a dark-red sphere out of the camera's view. Resize it so that it
> appears to be the same size as the marble and green spheres when
> looking from the mirror sphere's position. Then reposition the
> dark-red sphere so that it appears to be inbetween the marble and
> green spheres. Doesn't this seem possible?
Possible in some cases...but easier?!?
It will probably take a bit of trial and error to get right. It won't
work with some mirror surfaces or if you have a heavy normal, and it
will only work with the camera position you designed the scene with. And
if you have another mirror behind everything...and what about shadows?
The bounding method is fairly simple, works in nearly all cases, can be
set up without guesswork, and will not require redoing the scene every
time you move something. It will also work with oddball mirrors(torii,
CSG, multiple flat mirrors, etc.)
The no_image, no_reflection, etc. keywords are the simplest and easiest
solution...just add the keyword to the object and you get the intended
result. You can't get any simpler than that...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerome M. Berger wrote:
> Or else he used a bounding box to make the middle sphere visible from
>the mirror but not the camera
Yup. That's what I did. I put the bounding sphere for the
red sphere around the *reflecting* sphere. This works (as you saw)
but I am not entirely happy with it because it clobbers the shadow.
It would be cool for the invisable sphere to cast a shadow as well
as being reflected in the mirror.
BTW, that was done in (official) Povray 3.1, no fancy MEGA
tricks.
Pete
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pete wrote:
>
> Yup. That's what I did. I put the bounding sphere for the
> red sphere around the *reflecting* sphere. This works (as you saw)
> but I am not entirely happy with it because it clobbers the shadow.
> It would be cool for the invisable sphere to cast a shadow as well
> as being reflected in the mirror.
Bound it with a union of:
* a sphere around the mirror, like you have
* and a sphere whose center is at the same place as the light source and
with a very small radius...
This way it should be reflected and cast a shadow (and AFAIK this can't
be done with any combination of no_image, no_reflection...)
--
* Abandon the search for truth, * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* Settle for a good fantasy. * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*********************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Pete wrote:
> > It would be cool for the invisable sphere to cast a shadow as well
> > as being reflected in the mirror.
> Bound it with a union of:
> * a sphere around the mirror, like you have
> * and a sphere whose center is at the same place as the light source and
> with a very small radius...
>
> This way it should be reflected and cast a shadow (and AFAIK this can't
> be done with any combination of no_image, no_reflection...)
>
Simply using no_image, you would still have shadow and reflection...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Simply using no_image, you would still have shadow and reflection...
I thought no_image removed also the shadows?
--
* Abandon the search for truth, * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* Settle for a good fantasy. * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*********************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> >
> > Simply using no_image, you would still have shadow and reflection...
> I thought no_image removed also the shadows?
>
Well, look at this quickie (not as good as the initial poster of this thread)
The 'colors' of each finite object indicate the use of
no_shadow, no_image and no_reflection
Alas, the superellipsoid would be cyan...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'l.jpg' (16 KB)
Preview of image 'l.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jérôme M Berger
Subject: Re: invisable but reflecting [jpeg 16kbu]
Date: 17 Nov 2000 09:54:34
Message: <3A1546A8.717373B3@enst.fr>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Well, look at this quickie (not as good as the initial poster of this thread)
>
> The 'colors' of each finite object indicate the use of
> no_shadow, no_image and no_reflection
>
All right, I shouldn't speak about what I haven't tried...
--
* Abandon the search for truth, * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* Settle for a good fantasy. * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*********************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerome Grimbert wrote:
>Simply using no_image, you would still have shadow and reflection...
which only works in Mega POV, correct?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerome M. Berger wrote:
> Bound it with a union of:
>* a sphere around the mirror, like you have
>* and a sphere whose center is at the same place as the light source and
>with a very small radius...
> This way it should be reflected and cast a shadow (and AFAIK this
>can't be done with any combination of no_image, no_reflection...)
That worked! Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pete wrote:
>
> which only works in Mega POV, correct?
Correct, does that mean you're not using MegaPov? You don't know what
you're missing...
--
* Abandon the search for truth, * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* Settle for a good fantasy. * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*********************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
