Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

> In article <3a955c4d@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
> <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

>> Is the projected_through available now? 

> It's been around since the Superpatch days, I think.


>> Last I heard, portals only did a pigment, no light through the portal 
>> or photons or such.  Has it progressed, then?

> No, the projected_through feature has nothing to do with the portal 
> patch, it is a light_source feature that allows you to "project" light 
> through an object, making light shine through the object.

Ok, now I'm confused.  Does that mean light only exists after the object,
that the light rays don't exist in the space between light and object, but
come from the object?


>> One disadvantage that I noticed last night is that I can't use focal 
>> blur (post process), because only the summer side gets blurred.  The 
>> winter side is all at the mirror distance, rather than its 'true' 
>> distance, so doesn't get appropriately blurred.  On the other hand, a 
>> portal would have the opposite problem, with only the winter side 
>> blurring.

> The ordinary focal blur should work fine, though...it would just make 
> your scene even slower.

Yeah, and I've found that the sampling menthods don't give good results,
IMO.  But maybe for a final render with *lots* of samples...

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a956b79@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
<wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

> Ok, now I'm confused.  Does that mean light only exists after the object,
> that the light rays don't exist in the space between light and object, but
> come from the object?

Exactly. All areas that would be in the shadow of the projected_through 
object are illuminated. You would just use a copy of the portal object 
as the projected_through object, and transform copies of the necessary 
light_sources to appear through the portal object as if they were on the 
other end.


> > The ordinary focal blur should work fine, though...it would just make 
> > your scene even slower.
> 
> Yeah, and I've found that the sampling menthods don't give good results,
> IMO.  But maybe for a final render with *lots* of samples...

You can almost eliminate the grainyness if you use the right settings, 
but it is slow...

-- 
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

Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

> In article <3a956b79@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
> <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

>> Ok, now I'm confused.  Does that mean light only exists after the object,
>> that the light rays don't exist in the space between light and object, but
>> come from the object?

> Exactly. All areas that would be in the shadow of the projected_through 
> object are illuminated. You would just use a copy of the portal object 
> as the projected_through object, and transform copies of the necessary 
> light_sources to appear through the portal object as if they were on the 
> other end.

So with a portal object and the pass through, I could get such a light, but
that would only cast one way, and I'm not sure about the effects on
radiosity.

Anyway, when's the patch going to be available? ;)


>> > The ordinary focal blur should work fine, though...it would just make 
>> > your scene even slower.
>> 
>> Yeah, and I've found that the sampling menthods don't give good results,
>> IMO.  But maybe for a final render with *lots* of samples...

> You can almost eliminate the grainyness if you use the right settings, 
> but it is slow...

Really slow.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a9697c2@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
<wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

> So with a portal object and the pass through, I could get such a 
> light, but that would only cast one way, and I'm not sure about the 
> effects on radiosity.

Portal objects are all one-way...to get a 2-way effect you would need 2 
portal objects, one for each end, and more copies of light sources with 
pass_through set up for the second portal.


> Anyway, when's the patch going to be available? ;)

Two Weeks, or Real Soon Now. ;-)
I really don't know, I'm working on MegaPOVPlus 0.7 mod 0.1 now, and 
I've got the particle stuff and some other patches integrated, but have 
yet to even start the portal pigment stuff. It requires some new 
information to be passed through a lot of functions, so it will be a bit 
tedious to add...and there is a lot of other stuff which I might do.

-- 
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

Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

> Two Weeks, or Real Soon Now. ;-)
> I really don't know, I'm working on MegaPOVPlus 0.7 mod 0.1 now, and 
> I've got the particle stuff and some other patches integrated, but have 
> yet to even start the portal pigment stuff. It requires some new 
> information to be passed through a lot of functions, so it will be a bit 
> tedious to add...and there is a lot of other stuff which I might do.

I can wait.  My system doesn't require certain kinds of grotty math that I
would be happy to avoid, and I've managed to cut the time down
significantly, as well, so maybe no big deal.  

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

> In article <3a9697c2@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
> <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

>> So with a portal object and the pass through, I could get such a 
>> light, but that would only cast one way, and I'm not sure about the 
>> effects on radiosity.

> Portal objects are all one-way...to get a 2-way effect you would need 2 
> portal objects, one for each end, and more copies of light sources with 
> pass_through set up for the second portal.

Maybe I'm missing something.  I did a search on the Pov docs and didn't find
any reference for pass_through.  I looked at the Megapov docs and only found
it for photons.  Can you do a pass through with normal light_sources?  If
so, I think I might have figured a way to make this image much easier, and
faster.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3a9becc7@news.povray.org...

> Maybe I'm missing something.  I did a search on the Pov docs and didn't
find
> any reference for pass_through.  I looked at the Megapov docs and only
found
> it for photons.  Can you do a pass through with normal light_sources?  If
> so, I think I might have figured a way to make this image much easier, and
> faster.

From the megapov docs:

6.5. Projected through
Author: Ronald L. Parker

syntax:

light_source {
  ...
  projected_through {object {...}}
}
The light rays that pass through the projected_through object will be the
only light rays that contribute to the scene. Any objects between the light
and the projected through object will not cast shadows for this light. Also
any surface within the projected through object will not cast shadows. Any
textures or interiors on the object will be stripped and the object will not
show up in the scene. This is if the ambient value in the finish {} is set
to 0.

HTH

Gail
********************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * System.dat not found.         *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Reformat hard drive Y)es O)k  *
********************************************************************
* If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0               *
********************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:


> Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3a9becc7@news.povray.org...

>> Maybe I'm missing something.  I did a search on the Pov docs and didn't
> find
>> any reference for pass_through.  I looked at the Megapov docs and only
> found
>> it for photons.  Can you do a pass through with normal light_sources?  If
>> so, I think I might have figured a way to make this image much easier, and
>> faster.

> From the megapov docs:

> 6.5. Projected through
> Author: Ronald L. Parker

> syntax:

> light_source {
>   ...
>   projected_through {object {...}}
> }
> The light rays that pass through the projected_through object will be the
> only light rays that contribute to the scene. Any objects between the light
> and the projected through object will not cast shadows for this light. Also
> any surface within the projected through object will not cast shadows. Any
> textures or interiors on the object will be stripped and the object will not
> show up in the scene. This is if the ambient value in the finish {} is set
> to 0.

Ah.  Thanks.  I was looking for pass_through, per Chris's post, which is
photons.  I wonder if this should be made consistent... Not entirely sure
they do the same thing, though.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a9bf4b5@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
<wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

> Ah.  Thanks.  I was looking for pass_through, per Chris's post, which is
> photons.  I wonder if this should be made consistent... Not entirely sure
> they do the same thing, though.

I meant projected_through. And they don't do the same thing, 
pass_through behaves more like shadowless (or maybe I mean no_shadow? 
Those two *do* need to be made more consistent...), while 
projected_through does a fancy spot light.

-- 
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

Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

> In article <3a9bf4b5@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
> <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

>> Ah.  Thanks.  I was looking for pass_through, per Chris's post, which is
>> photons.  I wonder if this should be made consistent... Not entirely sure
>> they do the same thing, though.

> I meant projected_through. And they don't do the same thing, 
> pass_through behaves more like shadowless (or maybe I mean no_shadow? 
> Those two *do* need to be made more consistent...), while 
> projected_through does a fancy spot light.

Yeah, that's kinda what I thought.  Now I just have to experiment to see if
my fancy method will work or not.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message