On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:29:14 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
>Hugo wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> The attached picture show heightfields created from an isosurface. The
>> bottom ones are "smooth" but don't exactly look like I would expect, or like
>> I remember triangles do when they are smoothed correctly.. I tried different
>> lights.. I tried TGA, PNG and GIF.. I tried POV 3.5, MegaPOV 0.7 and POV
>> 3.1g and two computers.. It's all the same..What do you think?
>> 
>
>That looks much like the heightfield having only 8 bit resolution.  Using
>'hf_gray_16 on' in global_settings should help if you generate the
>heightfield with Povray.  But be careful when using png output in Povray
>3.5 with this since it does not work correctly right now.

Actually, the PNG output is fine.  It's the PNG input that's broken.

-- 
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> Actually, the PNG output is fine.  It's the PNG input that's broken.
> 

No, i have always (including last betas) used my 16 bit png's in Povray
heightfields without problems.  

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:09:28 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
>Ron Parker wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, the PNG output is fine.  It's the PNG input that's broken.
>> 
>
>No, i have always (including last betas) used my 16 bit png's in Povray
>heightfields without problems.  

16-bit greyscale PNGs?

-- 
#local R=rgb 99;#local P=R-R;#local F=pigment{gradient x}box{0,1pigment{gradient
y pigment_map{[.5F pigment_map{[.3R][.3F color_map{[.15red 99][.15P]}rotate z*45
translate x]}]#local H=pigment{gradient y color_map{[.5P][.5R]}scale 1/3}[.5F
pigment_map{[.3R][.3H][.7H][.7R]}]}}}camera{location.5-3*z}//only my opinions

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> 16-bit greyscale PNGs?
> 

Yes! (should i post one?)

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:20:31 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
>Ron Parker wrote:
>> 
>> 16-bit greyscale PNGs?
>> 
>
>Yes! (should i post one?)

By all means.  I'd like to see what the difference is, since I haven't
seen any problems with the PNGs POV outputs.

-- 
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbf 1}hollow interior{media{emission 3-T}}}#end 
Z(-x-x.2x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90normal{bumps.02scale.05}}

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> By all means.  I'd like to see what the difference is, since I haven't
> seen any problems with the PNGs POV outputs.
> 

Here are three 128x128 16 bit png's:

hf_pov35_16.png      generated with POV 3.5 beta 6 
hf_pov31_16.png      generated with POV 3.1
hf_xxx_16.png        generated with other program

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'hf_pov35_16.png' (25 KB) Download 'hf_pov31_16.png' (25 KB) Download 'hf_xxx_16.png' (29 KB)

Preview of image 'hf_pov35_16.png'

Preview of image 'hf_pov31_16.png'

Preview of image 'hf_xxx_16.png'

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3BC49D3F.5D87E8EB@gmx.de...
> Here are three 128x128 16 bit png's:
>
> hf_xxx_16.png        generated with other program

Uh? Something like Ategeros? ;)
Remember that there are people who are waiting for that.

--
Jonathan.

Post a reply to this message

Hi,

Thanks for the suggestion. I figured out myself that the 8 bit resolution
was the problem. However, wouldn't it be possible to make an "interpolate"
feature that make them appear as smooth as 16 bit?  For the user, it would
be easier to stick with 8 bit bitmaps because many paintprograms don't
support 16 bit greys.. I don't have one, that do.

I could also try another approch to store heightfields. To use the "trace"
command and make a grid of triangles myself.. I could get away with much
fewer triangles, if I am lucky to implement a triangle decimation algoritm.
This has proved hard in the past.

I tried to output a PNG 16 bit, and put "hf_gray_16" in global settings.. I
used POV 3.5 beta 5 and the result looks cool, as you can see.. I tried to
render the heightfield both in MegaPOV and POV 3.5 beta5, with same result.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Problem_Heightfield2.JPG' (53 KB)

Preview of image 'Problem_Heightfield2.JPG'

JRG wrote:
> 
> Uh? Something like Ategeros? ;)
> Remember that there are people who are waiting for that.
> 

I know, but it's quite problematic, things have grown over the years and
the structure of the program quite difficult to handle (in fact
*structure* is seriously missing :-).  

I'm considering starting new from scratch, before i would like to release
an experimental version of the current state, but there are serious
problems with things becoming very slow after some time of use.  If i for
example apply a filter 100 times it's getting slower and slower and i
can't find the reason...

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3bc4b311@news.povray.org...
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I figured out myself that the 8 bit resolution
> was the problem. However, wouldn't it be possible to make an "interpolate"
> feature that make them appear as smooth as 16 bit?  For the user, it would
> be easier to stick with 8 bit bitmaps because many paintprograms don't
> support 16 bit greys.. I don't have one, that do.
>
You could use your image as a image_map in a function then you could
use interpolate.

Post a reply to this message