 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] lilysoft org"> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> ambient 0.50
Yuck! :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> This is just what I was thinking of. Are you willing to share these,
> or just the colour data? :)
Sure. But I have only four more metal materials and here they are:
...snip
/--------------------------------------------------
#macro MaterialBronze(Polish, Dents)
material {
texture {
pigment {rgb <0.5568, 0.3484, 0.1528>}
N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
finish {
ambient 0 diffuse 1-0.3768
specular 0 brilliance 2
reflection {0.0 1.0 fresnel on metallic}
conserve_energy
}
}
interior {ior 3.1}
}
#end
#macro MaterialBrass(Polish, Dents)
material {
texture {
pigment {rgb <0.5709, 0.3356, 0.1491>}
N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
finish {
ambient 0 diffuse 1-0.3702
specular 0 brilliance 3
reflection {0.0 1.0 fresnel on metallic}
conserve_energy
}
}
interior {ior 8.0}
}
#end
#macro MaterialSteel(Polish, Dents)
material {
texture {
pigment {rgb <0.4412, 0.4137, 0.3727>}
N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
finish {
ambient 0 diffuse 1-0.4163
specular 0 brilliance 2.8
reflection {0.0 1.0 fresnel on metallic}
conserve_energy
}
}
interior {ior 8.6}
}
#end
#macro MaterialChrome(Polish, Dents)
material {
texture {
pigment {rgb <0.9310, 0.9265, 0.9221>}
N_Pattern(Polish, Dents)
finish {
ambient 0 diffuse 1-0.9642
specular 0 brilliance 3
reflection {0.0 1.0 fresnel on metallic}
conserve_energy
}
}
interior {ior 15}
}
#end
/--------------------------------------------------
...snip
Feel free to use them in any way you like. (Note, the diffuse setting is
quite important in combination with the color itself).
I do not claim there is something "physically" accurate with them -
especially with the way I did handle the fresnel reflection. In the
"real world" metals have fresnel reflection but in the "real world" the
IOR is a complex number and for metals the imaginary part of the IOR is
the important one. To do some tests with POV is since quite a while on
my "to do"-list... oh well, if only the "real life" would not need most
of my time :)
> 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!
>
BTW, the colors from "metals.inc" in the POV contribution are not so
bad, I think. The problem is, all of them (and this is also true for
colors.inc, woods.inc and so on) are created in the early days of
POV-Ray when everybody used assumed gamma 2.2 (or even assumed gamma was
not yet introduced, POV simply did work with gamma 2.2). But we had a
kind of paradigm change regarding the gamma handling and the new beta
enforces a linear gamma. So to use them they all have to be inverse
gamma corrected. And wrong gamma correction makes colors not only darker
or brighter, it changes also the hue.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
> For "radiosity-lit-only" scenes (or MCPov for that matter) it would even
> mean "specular 0" and "phong 0".
That's not necessary, as without classic light sources these values don't have
any effect anyway (well, maybe a *tiny* bit more computing time).
They should definitely be non-zero for materials to work in non-radiosity-lit
scenes, as they will have to simulate highlights from the classic lights, which
we can't see otherwise.
Ideally, there should be *some* connection between these values and the
reflectivity of the material (and likewise between the roughness or
corresponding phong parameter, and the blurriness of reflectivity in case
micronormals are used), though I'm not sure how exactly these should be
related.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive wrote:
> ambient 0 in the finish statement, otherwise it would emit light.
That's what #default { finish { ambient 0 } } is for.
What happens if you *want* the texture to have an ambient value >0?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Ive wrote:
>> ambient 0 in the finish statement, otherwise it would emit light.
>
> That's what #default { finish { ambient 0 } } is for.
This does not work if the texture already has a finish with ambient > 0.
But I'm pretty sure you know that.
> What happens if you *want* the texture to have an ambient value >0?
Well, in a radiosity scene - thats what I was talking about - this means
you are going to define a metal (remember, this thread is about metal
know that too ;)
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
>> For "radiosity-lit-only" scenes (or MCPov for that matter) it would even
>> mean "specular 0" and "phong 0".
>
> That's not necessary, as without classic light sources these values don't have
> any effect anyway (well, maybe a *tiny* bit more computing time).
>
> They should definitely be non-zero for materials to work in non-radiosity-lit
> scenes, as they will have to simulate highlights from the classic lights, which
> we can't see otherwise.
>
Well, I did see it the other way round. If you define a texture that
looks great with nice specular/phong highlights you might be
disappointed how it looks if used in a radiosity only lit scene, because
all highlights are gone.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka nous illumina en ce 2009-04-01 04:52 -->
> Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
>> For "radiosity-lit-only" scenes (or MCPov for that matter) it would even
>> mean "specular 0" and "phong 0".
>
> That's not necessary, as without classic light sources these values don't have
> any effect anyway (well, maybe a *tiny* bit more computing time).
>
> They should definitely be non-zero for materials to work in non-radiosity-lit
> scenes, as they will have to simulate highlights from the classic lights, which
> we can't see otherwise.
>
>
> Ideally, there should be *some* connection between these values and the
> reflectivity of the material (and likewise between the roughness or
> corresponding phong parameter, and the blurriness of reflectivity in case
> micronormals are used), though I'm not sure how exactly these should be
> related.
>
>
Any bluring will have an effect on the tightness of the highlights. The tighter
the highlight, the more visible the effect.
Low reflectivity goes with weak highlights. Ether use a multiple of the
reflection value or something like the square root of the reflection value. The
highlights tend to look as if it increase faster than the perceived reflection
for low reflection.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you have ever gotten in a flame
war over various rendering softwares.
Stephan Ahonen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous illumina en ce 2009-04-01 10:41 -->
> Ive wrote:
>> ambient 0 in the finish statement, otherwise it would emit light.
>
> That's what #default { finish { ambient 0 } } is for.
>
> What happens if you *want* the texture to have an ambient value >0?
You just add finish{ambient YourValue} and it will override that defined elsewhere.
If you provide a texture that is INTENDED as having some ambient, just add a
comment to that effect to your texture. Make it clear that that texture will
then illuminate it's surrounding in any radiosity scene.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
John' First Law of Software Developer Productivity:
"A program written by someone who does not work for you will be done when it is
done."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
