 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.45643206a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> Humph!
> Now you're showing your age :-) I only go back as far as dip pens
>
<cackle! cackle!> Just only 1..60 years old, young man!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Experimenting further.
To align apparent wind direction and ship behaviour, I mirrored the
isosurface's function around x. Of course, I could have turned the ship, but
that is the easy way out and I prefer to experiment.
What I did was change: f_ridged_mf( (x+y*.2)/4, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc. into:
f_ridged_mf( ((x+y*.2)/4)/-1, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc
and: (f_spotted(x/5+y/5, 0, z/5)-.5)*1 into: (f_spotted((x/5+y/5)/-1, 0,
z/5)-.5)*1
To stay on the save side, I added the parenteses before multiplying by -1.
This should be faster than mirroring the isosurface itself. But maybe this
introduces unwanted things. What do you think?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Tek_RoughSea.jpg' (180 KB)
Preview of image 'Tek_RoughSea.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> wrote:
> Experimenting further.
> To align apparent wind direction and ship behaviour, I mirrored the
> isosurface's function around x. Of course, I could have turned the ship, but
> that is the easy way out and I prefer to experiment.
>
> What I did was change: f_ridged_mf( (x+y*.2)/4, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc. into:
> f_ridged_mf( ((x+y*.2)/4)/-1, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc
>
> and: (f_spotted(x/5+y/5, 0, z/5)-.5)*1 into: (f_spotted((x/5+y/5)/-1, 0,
> z/5)-.5)*1
>
> To stay on the save side, I added the parenteses before multiplying by -1.
> This should be faster than mirroring the isosurface itself. But maybe this
> introduces unwanted things. What do you think?
>
> Thomas
The sea looks very different, most of the white horses have gone and the
noticed that yourself.
What does the scene look like if the camera is placed on the other side of
your ship, should it not look like the way it was before?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.45644c0da1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Thomas
> The sea looks very different, most of the white horses have gone and the
> foreground is smooth. Quite reflective in fact. But then you'll have
> noticed that yourself.
> What does the scene look like if the camera is placed on the other side of
> your ship, should it not look like the way it was before?
>
Yes, you are right! I just discovered a moment ago that I forgot to mirror
the function in the texture too!! :-(
That accounts for the loss of white horses. A new image is being brewed on
the POV burner. I shall post it later this afternoon. From what I can
already see, the white horses are back!! :-)
One reason why I did not want to move the ship (or the camera, for the time
being) is that I like the light incidence on it. However, it is mainly
because I want to play a bit with the functions and see what happens in the
present context.
I don't know, presently about the foreground. There seems to be a large
swale here. Later I shall lift the camera to see how it looks from above and
if this is recurring elsewhere.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
One other thing in the original post of the modified scene you said that you
multiplied by -1 when you actually divided by -1. I know the results are
the same (I hope) is there any particular reason?
Actually there were two other things. On my works monitor the image looks a
little washed out, what gamma settings are you using?
Stephen
> Yes, you are right! I just discovered a moment ago that I forgot to mirror
> the function in the texture too!! :-(
>
> That accounts for the loss of white horses. A new image is being brewed on
> the POV burner. I shall post it later this afternoon. From what I can
> already see, the white horses are back!! :-)
>
> One reason why I did not want to move the ship (or the camera, for the time
> being) is that I like the light incidence on it. However, it is mainly
> because I want to play a bit with the functions and see what happens in the
> present context.
>
> I don't know, presently about the foreground. There seems to be a large
> swale here. Later I shall lift the camera to see how it looks from above and
> if this is recurring elsewhere.
>
> Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.456458a1a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>
> Oh! We learn by our mistakes and I've learned a lot :-)
> One other thing in the original post of the modified scene you said that
> you
> multiplied by -1 when you actually divided by -1. I know the results are
> the same (I hope) is there any particular reason?
Ah! According to the documentation (c paragraph 2.3.3.3.9) transformations
on functions are different. So multiplying x by 2 is given as (x/2, y, z).
See the docs for more details. This is a very important paragraph because it
allows you to manipulate the functions as you want. It helped me enormously
in building my Geomorph macro a couple of years ago (see:
http://povray.tirnalong.com/ow.asp?GeoMorph ).
> Actually there were two other things. On my works monitor the image looks
> a
> little washed out, what gamma settings are you using?
>
I have the same when first viewing the image in WindowsExplorer for
instance. Saving it again in PSP without doing anything generally takes care
of the problem. It come from the new gamma handling in version 3.7. It has
been replaced by display_gamma in the ini, and set at 2.2. If I read the
docs right, presently 'assumed_gamma = 1' is automatically translated to
'display_gamma = 2.2' but I am not sure about this. Still a thing to
investigate.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> news:web.456458a1a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> > "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> >
> > Oh! We learn by our mistakes and I've learned a lot :-)
> > One other thing in the original post of the modified scene you said that
> > you
> > multiplied by -1 when you actually divided by -1. I know the results are
> > the same (I hope) is there any particular reason?
>
> Ah! According to the documentation (c paragraph 2.3.3.3.9) transformations
> on functions are different. So multiplying x by 2 is given as (x/2, y, z).
> See the docs for more details. This is a very important paragraph because it
> allows you to manipulate the functions as you want. It helped me enormously
> in building my Geomorph macro a couple of years ago (see:
> http://povray.tirnalong.com/ow.asp?GeoMorph ).
That makes sense to me <g> I don't do hard things.
> > Actually there were two other things. On my works monitor the image looks
> > a
> > little washed out, what gamma settings are you using?
> >
> I have the same when first viewing the image in WindowsExplorer for
> instance. Saving it again in PSP without doing anything generally takes care
> of the problem. It come from the new gamma handling in version 3.7. It has
> been replaced by display_gamma in the ini, and set at 2.2. If I read the
> docs right, presently 'assumed_gamma = 1' is automatically translated to
> 'display_gamma = 2.2' but I am not sure about this. Still a thing to
> investigate.
>
Interesting, Thanks
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> Here is an image with Tek's rough sea, and my Moray built VOC ship (in need
> of an upgrade!). Only the flags were not rendered due to a uv_mapping issue
> in version 3.7.
>
> total render time (v.3.7) about 2 hours, with a HP Media Center PC; Pentium
> D 2x3GHz
>
> Not the most perfect scene, but just to show off :-)
>
> Thomas
Nice pic, but the captain will be court martialed and keel hauled for
running full sail in that kind of weather merely to appease your artistic
vision!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:27:04 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>
>"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
>news:web.45643206a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Humph!
>> Now you're showing your age :-) I only go back as far as dip pens
>>
>
><cackle! cackle!> Just only 1..60 years old, young man!
>
>Thomas
>
Young man! Why thank you. You "silver surfer". you :-)
I'm not far behind you only 4 years.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:02:36 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>I have the same when first viewing the image in WindowsExplorer for
>instance. Saving it again in PSP without doing anything generally takes care
>of the problem. It come from the new gamma handling in version 3.7. It has
>been replaced by display_gamma in the ini, and set at 2.2. If I read the
>docs right, presently 'assumed_gamma = 1' is automatically translated to
>'display_gamma = 2.2' but I am not sure about this. Still a thing to
>investigate.
FYI
At home using my laptop I need to do a gamma correction of 0.38 with PSP. It
then looks dramatic & great.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
