IMBJR wrote:
> I think the anti-aliasing is the clue here. Must learn how to get good
> results.
> 
> However, the obvious difference between the 2 might be another clue.
> 
> This has at least made me conscious of something Bryce does in the way it
> handles certain attributes.

I had to make some wild guesses about your scene layout, but how's this?

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'bryceglass.png' (46 KB)

Preview of image 'bryceglass.png'

Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:3d683297@news.povray.org...
> IMBJR wrote:
> > I think the anti-aliasing is the clue here. Must learn how to get good
> > results.
> >
> > However, the obvious difference between the 2 might be another clue.
> >
> > This has at least made me conscious of something Bryce does in the way
it
> > handles certain attributes.
>
> I had to make some wild guesses about your scene layout, but how's this?

Yes, very close. That's a good repro without knowing where everything was.

>
> -Xplo
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it IMBJR who wrote:
>I think the anti-aliasing is the clue here. Must learn how to get good
>results.
>
>However, the obvious difference between the 2 might be another clue.
>
>This has at least made me conscious of something Bryce does in the way it
>handles certain attributes.

One thing I noticed in "thing_two.jpg" (the first of the two images) is
that the anti-aliassing is only working in the horizontal direction.

I know that POV always remembers the info calculated for the previous
line, so that it can perform anti-aliassing in both directions. I guess
Bryce can be told to switch to one-dimensional anti-aliassing, since in
your previous POV/Bryce images they both seem to have anti-aliassing in
both directions.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

> One thing I noticed in "thing_two.jpg" (the first of the two images)
> is that the anti-aliassing is only working in the horizontal direction.
> ....
> I guess Bryce can be told to switch to one-dimensional AA ...

Now I'm confused. Are you saying "thing_two.jpg" is from POV and the
brightest sphere is from Bryce? Then you have already improved the bryce
look considerably!  The darker ball is much more realistic.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it Hugo who wrote:
>> One thing I noticed in "thing_two.jpg" (the first of the two images)
>> is that the anti-aliassing is only working in the horizontal direction.
>> ....
>> I guess Bryce can be told to switch to one-dimensional AA ...
>
>Now I'm confused. Are you saying "thing_two.jpg" is from POV and the
>brightest sphere is from Bryce? Then you have already improved the bryce
>look considerably!  The darker ball is much more realistic.

I thought it had been established that thing_one (the second image) was
POV. I believe POV always does antialliasing in both directions.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

> >Now I'm confused. Are you saying "thing_two.jpg" is from POV
> > and thebrightest sphere is from Bryce? Then you have already
> > improved the bryce look considerably!  The darker ball is much
> > more realistic.
>
> I thought it had been established that thing_one (the second image)
> was POV. I believe POV always does antialliasing in both directions.

Yes it does, but .... but ... "thing_two" (the first image, with the dark
ball) is the image with AA in both directions, so it must be POV..


Hugo

Post a reply to this message

And this proves what, that Bryce is superior, or just that the 
texture/interior of the POV sphere was a bad choice?  (rhetorical question)


-- 
___     ______________________________________________
  | \     |_         website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
  |_/avid |ontaine           email: <dav### [at] faricynet>

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:
> And this proves what, that Bryce is superior, or just that the 
> texture/interior of the POV sphere was a bad choice?  (rhetorical question)

All it proves is that he's better at bryce.  In other tests, he admits 
not knowing everything about some of the settings.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote in message
news:3D6### [at] videotronca...
>
>
> David Fontaine wrote:
> > And this proves what, that Bryce is superior, or just that the
> > texture/interior of the POV sphere was a bad choice?  (rhetorical
question)
>
> All it proves is that he's better at bryce.  In other tests, he admits
> not knowing everything about some of the settings.
>


    Or that the default settings in Bryce give better results in the tests
he's done...

--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com

Post a reply to this message

Pandora wrote:
>     Or that the default settings in Bryce give better results in the tests
> he's done...

This is in fact sometimes a real problem. POV-Ray has evolved a long way 
since its early versions, and while maintaining compability with 
previous versions it seems that nowadays the default settings give 
poorest possible results. So, you have to study all the available 
settings and configure each one with trial and error to give realistic 
results. Or follow groups like these and imitate the masters.

I know that realistic settings take more time to render, but to lower 
the learning curve, it might be worth thinking about making POV give 
realistic results with default settings.

Post a reply to this message