I like the pattern of the floor... is it something like nested checkered
pigment patterns?
Nice metals too. Did you use a transparent layer to fake the highlights?
POV-3.5? Then, you're a lucky one.
--
Jonathan

"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3b89ac51@news.povray.org...
> Inspired by JRG's post, I decided to make one of my own. :) This was
> rendered with pre-beta POV 3.5*. Enjoy.
>
>
>
>
> * (P)review soon to appear on POVRay.co.uk.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> I like the pattern of the floor... is it something like nested checkered
> pigment patterns?

No. Just a simple "cells" pattern with a color_map.

> Nice metals too. Did you use a transparent layer to fake the highlights?

Nope. Here's what I used:

   finish
   {
    ambient 0 diffuse 0
    reflection {1 metallic}
    specular 3 roughness 0.01
    metallic conserve_energy
   }

> POV-3.5? Then, you're a lucky one.

Quite. Can you imagine getting an e-mail asking you if you would like to be
a Pre-Beta tester? Those don't come very often! :-D

Post a reply to this message

Is the blur a post-process in Povray or is it created while the picture
renders?   Just curious as to the amount of time it takes compared to the
older Povray focal blur.

"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message
news:3b89ac51@news.povray.org...
> Inspired by JRG's post, I decided to make one of my own. :) This was
> rendered with pre-beta POV 3.5*. Enjoy.
>
>
>
>
> * (P)review soon to appear on POVRay.co.uk.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

There is no "newer" blur. If you look at the Team's report from a year ago,
there were no plans to include post-processing of any kind in 3.5.
Therefore, this is the same as the old blur, and renders just as quickly...
or slowly rather. :)

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3b8a7a2b@news.povray.org...

> No. Just a simple "cells" pattern with a color_map.
>

Ouch! I should have known...


> Nope. Here's what I used:
>
>    finish
>    {
>     ambient 0 diffuse 0
>     reflection {1 metallic}
>     specular 3 roughness 0.01
>     metallic conserve_energy
>    }

Perfectly polished mirrors, and nice new syntax for reflection... Why are
you using conserve_energy with non-transparent objects?


> > POV-3.5? Then, you're a lucky one.
>
> Quite. Can you imagine getting an e-mail asking you if you would like to
be
> a Pre-Beta tester? Those don't come very often! :-D

I'm dribbling...

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

> Ouch! I should have known...

:)

> Perfectly polished mirrors, and nice new syntax for reflection... Why are
> you using conserve_energy with non-transparent objects?

<voice=Homer>Uh... I don't know...</voice>

> I'm dribbling...

"drooling" ;)

Post a reply to this message

"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3b8c1030@news.povray.org...
>
> "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3b8a7a2b@news.povray.org...
>
> >    finish
> >    {
> >     ambient 0 diffuse 0
> >     reflection {1 metallic}
> >     specular 3 roughness 0.01
> >     metallic conserve_energy
> >    }
>
> Perfectly polished mirrors, and nice new syntax for reflection... Why are
> you using conserve_energy with non-transparent objects?

I believe conserve_energy can reduce reflection oversaturation even on
opaque objects.  But, "why are there two 'metallic' keywords used and no
brilliance?", is my question.  :-)

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

I guess:
reflection {1 metallic) = reflection 1 reflect_metallic

Brilliance isn't needed at all since diffuse = 0.

--
Jonathan

"Bob H." <omn### [at] msncom> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3b8c6c4b@news.povray.org...
> "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:3b8c1030@news.povray.org...
> >
> > "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:3b8a7a2b@news.povray.org...
> >
> > >    finish
> > >    {
> > >     ambient 0 diffuse 0
> > >     reflection {1 metallic}
> > >     specular 3 roughness 0.01
> > >     metallic conserve_energy
> > >    }
> >
> > Perfectly polished mirrors, and nice new syntax for reflection... Why
are
> > you using conserve_energy with non-transparent objects?
>
> I believe conserve_energy can reduce reflection oversaturation even on
> opaque objects.  But, "why are there two 'metallic' keywords used and no
> brilliance?", is my question.  :-)
>
> Bob H.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3b8cc7d2$1@news.povray.org...
> I guess:
> reflection {1 metallic) = reflection 1 reflect_metallic
>
> Brilliance isn't needed at all since diffuse = 0.

Ahhh, smart.  I had to go back to reading and rendering to be sure how it
all does work and I see I've connected brilliance with metallic yet it isn't
so.
And you were right about conserve_energy only working on semitransparent
objects too, sorry.
That's what I get for having a mind that builds up it's own ideas about
things, unfortunately in often haphazard ways.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

> That's what I get for having a mind that builds up it's own ideas about
> things, unfortunately in often haphazard ways.
>
> Bob H.
>
Welcome to the Club ;)
Are there any of use who are not subject to that phenomenon ?
--
Y

Post a reply to this message