This is based on an image posted here about six months (?) ago. The original
artist may recognize that I ripped his idea off...

The twirly thingy is stolen directly (and shamelessly) from Friedrich
Lohmueller's excellent Pov tutorial pages.

The same old dead horse (maybe) but I think at least the colors look nice.

K'pla!
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rsocp_variation.jpg' (218 KB)

Preview of image 'rsocp_variation.jpg'

It looks nice!

But you have rendered a square image with a 4:3 aspect ratio, which has 
stretched the image. To use a 1:1 aspect ratio, you can set...

up y
right x

...in the camera definition.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> It looks nice!

Fanx
 
> But you have rendered a square image with a 4:3 aspect ratio, which has
> stretched the image. To use a 1:1 aspect ratio, you can set...
> 
> up y
> right x
> 
> ...in the camera definition.
> 
> Rune

Eh? Here's my camera def:

camera {  //  Camera SceneCam
  location  <    -11.316,     -14.102,       7.067>
  sky       <    0.00000,     0.00000,     1.00000> // Use right
handed-system 
  up        <        0.0,         0.0,         1.0> // Where Z is up
  right     <    1.34707,         0.0,         0.0> // Right Vector is
adjusted to compensate for spherical (Moray) vs. planar (POV-Ray) aspect
ratio
  angle         30.00000    // Vertical      22.500
  look_at   <      0.485,      -0.151,      -1.601>
}

(obviously the boilerplate one from Moray). I rendered the image in
1280x1024 - the aspect seems correct on my monitor here...? Or is 1280x1024
the culprit? 

Or am I just being daft?

Sorry but I'm still relatively new to Pov and I've never had to bother with
fixing aspect ratios...

Thanks for take a peek at the image!

Regards,
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message

Looks like one of your floor blocks has been marked for death by pirates.
;-)

PS nice.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Looks like one of your floor blocks has been marked for death by pirates.
> ;-)
> 
> PS nice.

Thanks - that was a slip with gimp when I was saving the image from tga to
jpeg after rendering - I accidentally had a brush tool "misfire"...:)

-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen <spa### [at] removethispolardcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
> > Looks like one of your floor blocks has been marked for death by pirates.
> > ;-)
> >
> > PS nice.
>
> Thanks - that was a slip with gimp when I was saving the image from tga to
> jpeg after rendering - I accidentally had a brush tool "misfire"...:)

Aha. That happens to me too. Stupid hair-trigger gimp tools :)

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen" <spa### [at] removethispolardcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4677a410@news.povray.org...

> Or am I just being daft?
>

To tell the truth, neither can I see anything wrong with this image...
Nice one Stefan!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> Eh? Here's my camera def:
>

>  up        <        0.0,         0.0,         1.0> // Where Z is up
>  right     <    1.34707,         0.0,         0.0> // Right Vector is

It should be

right     <    1.25,         0.0,         0.0>

I thought at first that the image was square, but it is in fact 1280x1024 
which is 5:4 aspect ratio. However, your camera definition uses a 4:3 aspect 
ratio, which stretches the image slightly. See the attached image. If you 
change the right vector in the camera to the one above, the image will not 
be stretched anymore.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rsocp_variation_stretched.jpg' (105 KB)

Preview of image 'rsocp_variation_stretched.jpg'

Rune wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> Eh? Here's my camera def:
>>
> 
>>  up        <        0.0,         0.0,         1.0> // Where Z is up
>>  right     <    1.34707,         0.0,         0.0> // Right Vector is
> 
> It should be
> 
> right     <    1.25,         0.0,         0.0>
> 
> I thought at first that the image was square, but it is in fact 1280x1024
> which is 5:4 aspect ratio. However, your camera definition uses a 4:3
> aspect ratio, which stretches the image slightly. See the attached image.
> If you change the right vector in the camera to the one above, the image
> will not be stretched anymore.
> 
> Rune

Ok, thanks!

I'll remember that when rendering in 1280x1024 in the future.

Regards,
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> "Stefan Viljoen" <spa### [at] removethispolardcom> schreef in bericht
> news:4677a410@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Or am I just being daft?
>>
> 
> To tell the truth, neither can I see anything wrong with this image...
> Nice one Stefan!
> 
> Thomas

Bedankt, Thomas! Interessant om 'n Nederlander hier te sien. Hoe se julle
daar? Erg Leuk!

Groete vir die kaaskoppe
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message

> This is based on an image posted here about six months (?) ago. The 
> original
> artist may recognize that I ripped his idea off...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/153557795_17d207dad0_o.jpg

Yeh I noticed, but that's the whole point of posting stuff here, so that 
everyone else can get inspiration.  It looks good :-)  Actually I got 
inspiration for my original from a promotional magazine in the office next 
to mine.

Also, I found that using superellipsoids rather than rounded boxes gave 
"smoother" looking reflections.

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen" <spa### [at] removethispolardcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4677d9be@news.povray.org...
>
> Bedankt, Thomas! Interessant om 'n Nederlander hier te sien. Hoe se julle
> daar? Erg Leuk!
>
> Groete vir die kaaskoppe

Ja, wat zal ik zeggen? Ik moet mij toch eens wat meer in het Afrikaans 
verdiepen :-)  Lezen gaat altijd wel....

En de groeten van de kaaskop!!!  Joeghei!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen" <spa### [at] removethispolardcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4677d933@news.povray.org...
> I'll remember that when rendering in 1280x1024 in the future.
>


There is a nice little thing you can use easily:

//before the camera definition:
#local H=image_width/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
#local V=image_height/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
#local Iwidth = 500;
#local Iheight = 600;

//in the camera definition use:
right    x*(Iwidth*M)/(Iheight*M)


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> schreef in bericht 
news:4677e3a7@news.povray.org...
>
> "Stefan Viljoen" <spa### [at] removethispolardcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4677d933@news.povray.org...
>> I'll remember that when rendering in 1280x1024 in the future.
>>
>
>
> There is a nice little thing you can use easily:
>
> //before the camera definition:
> #local H=image_width/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
> #local V=image_height/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
> #local Iwidth = 500;
> #local Iheight = 600;
>
> //in the camera definition use:
> right    x*(Iwidth*M)/(Iheight*M)
>
>
> Thomas
>

Ouch!! forgot
#local M = 1;
 in the declaration. Not really essential though, but for completeness sake 
of this example.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> There is a nice little thing you can use easily:
>
> //before the camera definition:
> #local H=image_width/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
> #local V=image_height/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
> #local Iwidth = 500;
> #local Iheight = 600;
>
> //in the camera definition use:
> right    x*(Iwidth*M)/(Iheight*M)
>

> Ouch!! forgot
> #local M = 1;
> in the declaration. Not really essential though, but for completeness
> sake of this example.

I don't understand this. You declare H and V using a clever method, but then 
don't use those variables at all...

I'd simply say:

#local W = image_width/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
#local H = image_height/sqrt(image_height*image_width);

// in the camera definition use:
right    x*W
up y*H // or z*H if Z is up

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> This is based on an image posted here about six months (?) ago. The
>> original
>> artist may recognize that I ripped his idea off...
> 
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/153557795_17d207dad0_o.jpg
> 
> Yeh I noticed, but that's the whole point of posting stuff here, so that
> everyone else can get inspiration.

Well, your scene sure inspired me!

> It looks good :-)  Actually I got 
> inspiration for my original from a promotional magazine in the office next
> to mine.

I wonder if there are any truly original ideas around anywhere anymore...
 
> Also, I found that using superellipsoids rather than rounded boxes gave
> "smoother" looking reflections.

I simply used Moray 3.5's "standard" rounded box for my boxes - how does
rendering time compare for unions (which my boxes are) vs. superellipsoids?
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rune wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> There is a nice little thing you can use easily:
>>
>> //before the camera definition:
>> #local H=image_width/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
>> #local V=image_height/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
>> #local Iwidth = 500;
>> #local Iheight = 600;
>>
>> //in the camera definition use:
>> right    x*(Iwidth*M)/(Iheight*M)
>>
> 
>> Ouch!! forgot
>> #local M = 1;
>> in the declaration. Not really essential though, but for completeness
>> sake of this example.
> 
> I don't understand this. You declare H and V using a clever method, but then 
> don't use those variables at all...
> 
> I'd simply say:
> 
> #local W = image_width/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
> #local H = image_height/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
> 
> // in the camera definition use:
> right    x*W
> up y*H // or z*H if Z is up
> 
> Rune
	Why the square root? Why not simply:
up y // or z
right x * image_width / image_height

	Or
up y * image_height
right x * image_width

	The actual length of the vectors doesn't matter since he used angle
afterwards.

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGeDMgd0kWM4JG3k8RAjDhAJ9PksYQGfFUh+tC5CixcH2bq7jJ5wCgnrW9
5VBHNX5QrRgPQBn3ICS0EUQ=
=zKgU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

"Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> I'd simply say:
>>
>> #local W = image_width/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
>> #local H = image_height/sqrt(image_height*image_width);
>>
>> // in the camera definition use:
>> right    x*W
>> up y*H // or z*H if Z is up
>>
>> Rune
>
> Why the square root? Why not simply:
> up y // or z
> right x * image_width / image_height
>
> Or
> up y * image_height
> right x * image_width
>
> The actual length of the vectors doesn't matter since he used angle
> afterwards.

I screwed a bit up in my previous message. Here is what I meant:

If you want an automatic adjustment for image ratio that doesn't prioritize 
either horizontal or vertical angle, you can use:

#declare Zoom = 1.0;

up y*sqrt(image_height/image_width)/Zoom
right x*sqrt(image_width/image_height)/Zoom

This will for example have the effect that if you switch the width and 
height of the image, it will be like if you rotated a real camera 90 
degrees: the area will be the same.

Remember though that the effect will be overruled if the angle keyword is 
used.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <new### [at] runevisioncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4677e660$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I don't understand this. You declare H and V using a clever method, but 
> then don't use those variables at all...
>
Ouch!!!  You are perfectly right! I was falling asleep probably :-)
H and V have nothing to do with  this :-(
They are used for something different... Just copied stupidly a bit of code 
without really checking...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/06/19 11:44:
> scott wrote:
> 
>>> This is based on an image posted here about six months (?) ago. The
>>> original
>>> artist may recognize that I ripped his idea off...
>> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/153557795_17d207dad0_o.jpg
>>
>> Yeh I noticed, but that's the whole point of posting stuff here, so that
>> everyone else can get inspiration.
> 
> Well, your scene sure inspired me!
> 
>> It looks good :-)  Actually I got 
>> inspiration for my original from a promotional magazine in the office next
>> to mine.
> 
> I wonder if there are any truly original ideas around anywhere anymore...
>  
>> Also, I found that using superellipsoids rather than rounded boxes gave
>> "smoother" looking reflections.
> 
> I simply used Moray 3.5's "standard" rounded box for my boxes - how does
> rendering time compare for unions (which my boxes are) vs. superellipsoids?
A superellipsoid takes longer to render than box, spheres and cylinders. Box and 
spheres are highly optimised shapes, and cylinders are slightly less. 
Superellipsoids can't benefit as much from optimisation as they have variable 
curvature and much more complex equations.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

Post a reply to this message

Nice!  Got any 1024 x 768 versions floating around?
--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com

Post a reply to this message

Dan Byers wrote:

> Nice!  Got any 1024 x 768 versions floating around?

Thanks - nope, but if you want I can send you the source? Very small...

Then you can render your own one?

Drop me a mail at spamnot@<removethis>polard.com and I'll be more than happy
to send it to you.

Regards,
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message