 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Playing around with Warps recently posted function. It immediately reminded
me of either a seed PoD or a microscopic image of a pollen spore.
Question for the Guru's - Why is it that when bounding is removed this
object is a unit sized box object but when bounding is enabled the object
fills the bounding volume ?
Function for those interested in such things -
camera { location <5,10,-20>*4 look_at 0 angle 39 }
light_source { <100,200,-150> 1 }
isosurface
{ function
{ (sin(sqrt(-x*x+y*y)-pi/2)-z)^2+
(sin(sqrt(-x*x+z*z)-pi/2)-y)^2+
(sin(sqrt(-y*y+z*z)-pi/2)-x)^2-20^2
}
accuracy .01
max_trace 1
threshold 0
bounded_by { box { -30,30 } }
pigment { rgb y } finish { phong -.5 specular .5 }
}
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'isotest.jpg' (28 KB)
Preview of image 'isotest.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
aaa-aa-achoo!
Sorry, I just had to say that.
It does look remarkably like some sort of seed pod to me.
Not a clue on the bounding phenomenon. Except maybe... isn't the isosurface
constrained to a unit size initially? Or am I way off there.
Bob
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:387278B4.41BD9AC5@pacbell.net...
>
> Playing around with Warps recently posted function. It immediately
reminded
> me of either a seed PoD or a microscopic image of a pollen spore.
>
> Question for the Guru's - Why is it that when bounding is removed this
> object is a unit sized box object but when bounding is enabled the object
> fills the bounding volume ?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does look like a type of pollen. I'm mostly used to seeing the kind that looks
like dehydrated red blood cells. (Hmm, I should try rendering hat with
blobs...)
> Question for the Guru's - Why is it that when bounding is removed this
> object is a unit sized box object but when bounding is enabled the object
> fills the bounding volume ?
From the MultiPatch page at nathan.kopp.com:
"The default is a box of <-1,-1,-1>, <1,1,1>"
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
> > Question for the Guru's - Why is it that when bounding is removed this
> > object is a unit sized box object but when bounding is enabled the object
> > fills the bounding volume ?
>
> From the MultiPatch page at nathan.kopp.com:
> "The default is a box of <-1,-1,-1>, <1,1,1>"
I realize that many functions/objects in pov default to a unit square but
what I do not understand is why manual bounding affects this and why it
is not documented as doing so. I also need to know how one determines the
size of the bounding volume to use for a given iso surface object or if
it can be any arbitrary amount.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <387278B4.41BD9AC5@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> Question for the Guru's - Why is it that when bounding is removed this
> object is a unit sized box object but when bounding is enabled the object
> fills the bounding volume ?
Isosurface objects require a bounding shape for their calculations, the
default is a unit sized box. Since this is entirely inside the function,
the whole box is filled with the object.
A better bounding shape for this isosurface might be a sphere.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38727F66.741BE70D@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> I realize that many functions/objects in pov default to a unit square but
> what I do not understand is why manual bounding affects this and why it
> is not documented as doing so. I also need to know how one determines the
> size of the bounding volume to use for a given iso surface object or if
> it can be any arbitrary amount.
"bounded_by" does not work the same in isosurfaces as it does for other
shapes, it just uses a unit box as default. The bounding shape is just
the "container" for the isosurface. I really think this part of the
syntax should be changed when the isosurface is added to the official
version, and be replaced with something like "contained_by".
The size of the bounding shape doesn't really matter, if it is smaller
than the resulting shape it will be the same as intersecting the
isosurface with the bounding shape.
The only ways to determine the correct size are trial and error or
figuring out the furthest reach of the object from the equation and the
threshold value. I usually guess at it from the equation and then use
trial and error to get a shape that fits correctly. I also sometimes
switch to clipped_by(which does the same thing but leaves the surfaces
open) to make sure there are no intersecting points.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the input Chris.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can't help thinking about the poetry of the Azagoths of Kria, the
second worst poetry in the entire Universe, and in particular about
the masterpiece by Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent called "Ode To
A Small Lump of Green Putty I Found In My Armpit One Midsummer
Morning".
And some Vogon poetry to go with that:
"Oh frettled gruntbuggly, thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits ona lurgid bee.
Groop I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes.
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
see if I don't!"
Sorry, had to ;)
Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
> Sorry, had to ;)
Well I'm glad you like it.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <yaZzOPdXi9P7je7hpq1=4lenA1Bi@4ax.com>, Peter Popov
<pet### [at] usanet> wrote:
> I can't help thinking about the poetry of the Azagoths of Kria, the
> second worst poetry in the entire Universe, and in particular about
> the masterpiece by Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent called "Ode To
> A Small Lump of Green Putty I Found In My Armpit One Midsummer
> Morning".
>
> And some Vogon poetry to go with that:
>
> "Oh frettled gruntbuggly, thy micturations are to me
> As plurdled gabbleblotchits ona lurgid bee.
> Groop I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes.
> And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
> Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
> see if I don't!"
>
> Sorry, had to ;)
Been reading Douglas Adams lately? :-)
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
