 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
in <3AA2B1D7.1530E613@gmx.de> Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> I think it makes sense in this case...actually, "blurred_pattern"
>> seems even better. Just plain "blur" seems kind of ambiguous...it
>> doesn't seem as apparent that the *pattern* is what is being
>> blurred.
>>
>
>All right, since English is not my native language i will not argue
>that.
Should it be a pattern at all? Why not as a method of 'transformation'
like turbulence, maybe even within a warp statement.
pigment{
wood
warp{ blurr .... }
}
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
In article <3AA2B1D7.1530E613@gmx.de>, Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> > I think it makes sense in this case...actually, "blurred_pattern"
> > seems even better. Just plain "blur" seems kind of ambiguous...it
> > doesn't seem as apparent that the *pattern* is what is being
> > blurred.
> All right, since English is not my native language i will not argue that.
I just added it to my code, and realized it takes a pigment, not a
pattern...why is that? It kind of messes up my logic for the name...it
should be "blurred_pigment_pattern". ;-)
I think my first modification will be to change it to use a
pattern...that might speed it up slightly. I can't think of any benefit
to using a pigment...
> > Alright...I just downloaded the source code, and will probably
> > integrate your stuff into MegaPOV+. (it will be the last thing
> > added, though, in case you release a new version before I complete
> > MP+)
> Will that be based on Megapov 0.7 ?
Yes.
> Integrating your particle system patch I also saw that some other things
> were not yet included in Megapov like the curvature pattern. What's the
> reason?
They aren't finished, some of them just don't work.
> > Now *that* has some potential for confusion...
> Yeah :-)
>
> While the 'shadows' in the object pattern with visibility are infinitely
> long, the value raises to 1 at the length of the distance vector in the
> visibility pattern.
So the value tends toward 0 as the object gets nearer, and the effect of
an object gets stronger with distance? That doesn't seem right...an
object should have less influence with distance.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] mac com, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tag povray org, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> I just added it to my code, and realized it takes a pigment, not a
> pattern...why is that? It kind of messes up my logic for the name...it
> should be "blurred_pigment_pattern". ;-)
> I think my first modification will be to change it to use a
> pattern...that might speed it up slightly. I can't think of any benefit
> to using a pigment...
It can be declared, furthermore: just laziness.
> So the value tends toward 0 as the object gets nearer, and the effect of
> an object gets stronger with distance? That doesn't seem right...an
> object should have less influence with distance.
>
Probably better the other way round, in both patterns. The idea in the
object pattern was shadow -> 0, but that's not that important.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
ingo wrote:
>
> Should it be a pattern at all? Why not as a method of 'transformation'
> like turbulence, maybe even within a warp statement.
>
> pigment{
> wood
> warp{ blurr .... }
> }
>
Since it is no transformation in fact, i'm not sure if that's possible.
Values get changed, in block patterns like checker even totally new values
occur.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
In article <Xns### [at] povray org>, ing### [at] home nl (ingo)
wrote:
> Should it be a pattern at all? Why not as a method of 'transformation'
> like turbulence, maybe even within a warp statement.
This is how my patch worked...however, block patterns, which have a
fixed number of flat areas, might not work as expected when the blurring
returns "in-between" values.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] mac com, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tag povray org, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |