"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:49d1dc84$1@news.povray.org...
> This is great for far away; greebles for close up. Well done!
> By the way, how is your update of the greebles macro coming along? (just 
> curious...)

not so good :(

I was working on it this weekend.  It works, but it's extremely slow.  As 
in: 25 minutes parsing time for 1 very simple greebled patch.  An entire 
spaceship made with those greebled patches would take a couple of hours. 
Not very useful, is it :(

I'm not sure yet how to make it faster.

oh well, I'll find a way :)

cu!
-- 
#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
#end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
_(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x)            // ZK http://www.povplace.com

Post a reply to this message

My own textures aren't comparable to these incredible examples, but I 
have some other suggestions:

LightBeam's "Pyramolles" metallic material:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C41aa4cb1@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=231772&toff=1650

Jaime Vives Piqueres's t_custom_paint:
http://news.povray.org/41d83ed3@news.povray.org

Michael Raiford's copper texture:
http://news.povray.org/41e52fcd$1@news.povray.org

Ross's texture:
http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3C42c5bb9d%40news.povray.org%3E/

Helge H's texture:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.4403bbf171d7750e1c6902970@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=284288&toff=1550


;-)
Paolo



 >[GDS|Entropy]  on date 29/03/2009 04:06 wrote:
> To all users:
> 
> Please post your metal textures here.
> Once this inc file is done I will move to waters.inc, stones.inc, woods.inc, 
> etc.. so you can go ahead and post those textures too if you want. Remember: 
> radiosity compatibility. ;-)
> 
> ian 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"[GDS|Entropy]" <gds-entropy    AT    hotmail   DOT  com> wrote:
> Please post your metal textures here.
> Once this inc file is done I will move to waters.inc, stones.inc, woods.inc,
> etc.. so you can go ahead and post those textures too if you want. Remember:
> radiosity compatibility. ;-)

These textures are all great, but they all seem to fill very specific needs.
What might be nice is to also offer a set of 'bog-standard' ;-) polished,
diffuse or otherwise finished metals which just consist of a well-chosen
pigment colour and the standard finish/normal in question (i.e., Gold_Polished,
Gold_Diffuse, Gold_Beaten) etc.

Does anyone know of any decent photographic reference table(s) that compare
different metal colours? Even just jewellery metals would be a starting point.
(I've tried searching for this before and always come up short). I know some of
the common ones are defined in colors.inc, but to be honest most of them don't
look like the metals they're named for, so starting afresh would be my best
option.

I'm happy to knock up a standard set like this as long as I can find some good
image references.

Comments?

Post a reply to this message

Very evocative!
;-)
Paolo

 >Zeger Knaepen  on date 29/03/2009 19:31 wrote:
> Metallic spaceship-hull panels
> 
> .. or greebles-in-a-texture if you like :)
>

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
  > These textures are all great, but they all seem to fill very 
specific needs.
> What might be nice is to also offer a set of 'bog-standard' ;-) polished,
> diffuse or otherwise finished metals which just consist of a well-chosen
> pigment colour and the standard finish/normal in question (i.e., Gold_Polished,
> Gold_Diffuse, Gold_Beaten) etc.
> 
> Does anyone know of any decent photographic reference table(s) that compare
> different metal colours? Even just jewellery metals would be a starting point.
> (I've tried searching for this before and always come up short). I know some of
> the common ones are defined in colors.inc, but to be honest most of them don't
> look like the metals they're named for, so starting afresh would be my best
> option.
> 
> I'm happy to knock up a standard set like this as long as I can find some good
> image references.
> 
> Comments?
> 

Well, what I have is some data measured with a spectrophotometer. Colors 
(converted into scRGB color space - which is just sRGB primaries but 
with a linear gamma mapping), diffuse reflection as measured together 
with some IOR for fresnel reflection.

I made some macros for them, looks like this:


...snip
//******************************************************

// some micro normals

#declare P_Micro1 = pigment {
   granite turbulence 0
   color_map {
     [0.0 rgb 0.3]
     [1.0 rgb 0.7]
   }
   scale 0.003
}


#declare P_Micro2 = pigment {
   onion turbulence 0.5
   color_map{
     [0.0  color rgb 1.00]
     [0.45 color rgb 0.99]
     [0.55 color rgb 0.96]
     [1.0  color rgb 0.95]
   }
   scale 0.01
}



#declare P_Macro1 = pigment {
   crackle turbulence 1
   color_map {
     [0.00 rgb 0.3]
     [0.01 rgb 0.3]
     [0.02 rgb 0.7]
     [1.00 rgb 0.7]
   }
   scale 0.3
}

// "micro"-normals for blurred reflection - to get some highlights
#macro P_Polish(Polish)
   pigment_pattern {
     average
     pigment_map {
       [1 P_Micro1 translate x*20]
       [1 P_Micro1 translate y*20]
       [1 P_Micro1 translate z*20]
       [1 P_Micro2 translate -x*20]
       [1 P_Micro2 translate -y*20]
       [1 P_Micro2 translate -z*20]
     }
   }
   1 - Polish
#end


// "macro"-normals for scratches and dents
#macro P_Dents(Dents)
   pigment_pattern {
     average
     pigment_map {
       [1 P_Macro1 translate y*10]
       [1 P_Macro1 translate z*10]
     }
   }
   Dents
#end


// averaged normals
#macro N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
   normal {
     average
     normal_map {
       [1 P_Polish(Polish)]
       [1 P_Dents(Dents)]
     }
   }
#end



// MATERIAL MACROS

#macro MaterialGold(Polish, Dents)
   material {
     texture {
       pigment {rgb <0.9927, 0.6952, 0.3302>}
       N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
       finish {
         ambient 0  diffuse 1-0.7280
         specular 0  brilliance 3
         reflection {0.0 1.0 fresnel on metallic}
         conserve_energy
       }
     }
     interior {ior 2.83}
   }
#end


#macro MaterialSilver(Polish, Dents)
   material {
     texture {
       pigment {rgb <0.9284, 0.9016, 0.8678>}
       N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
       finish {
         ambient 0  diffuse 1-0.9001
         specular 0 brilliance 3
         reflection {0.0 1.0 fresnel on metallic}
         conserve_energy
       }
     }
     interior {ior 3.64}
   }
#end


#macro MaterialCopper(Polish, Dents)
   material {
     texture {
       pigment {rgb <0.7802, 0.2985, 0.1078>}
       N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
       finish {
         ambient 0  diffuse 1-0.3832
         specular 0  brilliance 2.4
         reflection {0.0 1.0 fresnel on metallic}
         conserve_energy
       }
     }
     interior {ior 3.26}
   }
#end

//******************************************************
...snip


Note that I did not use any specular or phong highlights, it all depends 
    on (blurred) reflections so they work well with "radiosity-only" 
scenes or MC-Pov. But I guess to add some specular values is simple and 
the values for brilliance are just wild guesses anyway (maybe they 
should be equal to the ior, I must admit that I have no idea how POV 
computes this brilliance value).

Example images, one is MCPov with 200 passes and one is POV Beta 31 with 
conventional lighting and 128 light sources (no radiosity).

Settings are always 0.5 for "Polished" and 0.2 for "Dents".

And I have (over)used the kitchen probe once more again ;)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'material_test_mcpov.jpg' (62 KB) Download 'material_test_lightdome.jpg' (50 KB)

Preview of image 'material_test_mcpov.jpg'

Preview of image 'material_test_lightdome.jpg'

Kenneth wrote:
> "[GDS|Entropy]" <gds-entropy    AT    hotmail   DOT  com> wrote:
>> To all users:
>>
>> Please post your metal textures here.
>> Once this inc file is done I will move to waters.inc, stones.inc, woods.inc,
>> etc.. so you can go ahead and post those textures too if you want. Remember:
>> radiosity compatibility. ;-)
>>
>> ian
> 
> Sorry to be so brain-challenged, but: radiosity compatibility? I've seen that
> term mentioned several times lately, and have no clue what it means re:
> textures.  I must have missed something somewhere. Please explain?
> 
> KW
> 

ambient 0 in the finish statement, otherwise it would emit light.

For "radiosity-lit-only" scenes (or MCPov for that matter) it would even 
mean "specular 0" and "phong 0".

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

I like them.
Some of these are very ...organic.
;-)
Paolo

 >Thomas de Groot  on date 29/03/2009 11:20 wrote:
> Here are six metal textures. Nothing really special. Just thought they might 
> be of interest.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> schreef in bericht 
news:49d1ec3c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> not so good :(
>
> I was working on it this weekend.  It works, but it's extremely slow.  As 
> in: 25 minutes parsing time for 1 very simple greebled patch.  An entire 
> spaceship made with those greebled patches would take a couple of hours. 
> Not very useful, is it :(
>
> I'm not sure yet how to make it faster.
>
> oh well, I'll find a way :)
>

In the meantime, the present version works fine :-)

I am sure you will find a way eventually.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Beautiful. This is just what I was thinking of. Are you willing to share these,
or just the colour data? :) How many metals have you created like this?

Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
> Note that I did not use any specular or phong highlights, it all depends
>     on (blurred) reflections so they work well with "radiosity-only"
> scenes or MC-Pov. But I guess to add some specular values is simple and
> the values for brilliance are just wild guesses anyway

Yeah, sounds good. Doesn't really matter, as long as they look good most of the
time, users can tweak easily enough.

> And I have (over)used the kitchen probe once more again ;)

Never!

To be honest, I wasn't even thinking of anything this ambitious - just a basic
polished finish, maybe some dents, really just to get the basic colours
consistent and believable. Great work!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Sorry to be so brain-challenged, but: radiosity compatibility? I've seen that
> term mentioned several times lately, and have no clue what it means re:
> textures.  I must have missed something somewhere. Please explain?

Basically just making sure that it can be used in radiosity scenes without
acting as a light emitter there (due to ambient set to >0).

Post a reply to this message