On 10-1-2014 9:59, Ive wrote:
> Am 10.01.2014 09:21, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> The bright dots are still a problem indeed. They are also present in
>> Christoph's image. I wonder if this is not light leaking along mesh
>> edges....
>>
> It is light leaking and it gets even worse when using higher quality
> (i.e. lower error_bound) settings. I guess the only solution is to
> remodel the room and give the walls and the ceiling some real thickness,
> thats what I did. As with CSG where it is a good idea to let walls and
> ceiling overlap.

You confirm my own guess. I am going to process the walls and pillars 
objects in Silo.

>
>
>> presently, radiosity settings are:
>>
>>    radiosity {
>>        pretrace_start   0.08
>>        pretrace_end     0.004
>>        count            500, 1000
>>        nearest_count    10, 5
>>        error_bound      1
>>        recursion_limit  4
>>        low_error_factor 0.3
>>        gray_threshold   0.0
>>        minimum_reuse    0.015
>>        maximum_reuse    0.1
>>        brightness       1
>>        adc_bailout      1/100000
>>        normal           on
>>        media            off
>>        always_sample    off
>>        //max_sample     1.0
>>    }
>>
>
> When you add no_radiosity to all window/door glasses you'll get away
> with 2 recursions and faster render speed - without any visual impact.

Good idea. I didn't think of that possibility.

> And I'm not sure about this low adc_bailout within the radiosity block,
> if such low value is needed shouldn't it go into the global settings
> block itself - to keep the photons visible?
> Maybe Christoph can shed some light on this.

I put in that low adc_bailout in preparation to the photons/caustics 
generation, as Christoph suggested earlier in this thread. I am a newbie 
as far as this is concerned.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.01.2014 10:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> And I'm not sure about this low adc_bailout within the radiosity block,
>> if such low value is needed shouldn't it go into the global settings
>> block itself - to keep the photons visible?
>
> I put in that low adc_bailout in preparation to the photons/caustics
> generation, as Christoph suggested earlier in this thread.
>
Yes, thats what I'm saying too, but it seems you missed the "global 
settings block itself" - and not the radiosity block within the global 
settings.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.01.2014 09:21, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 10-1-2014 1:13, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
>> Still, to me the overall light levels of the shadowed parts seems
>> somewhat too low (but this might be a question of my system's gamma -
>> currently 2.0)... and there are still some bright artifact dots along
>> the upper edges of the walls. What radiosity settings did you use?
>
> I agree about the light levels but I don't know how to compensate that
> other than by an additional light (I don't like) or by a stronger light
> maybe (I shall try). However, I personally like this and my impression
> is that this is a /natural/ situation. Comments welcome.

The proper approach to compensate would be to increase the walls' 
brightness. /If/ you want to compensate at all. Looks natural enough to 
me, too.

> The bright dots are still a problem indeed. They are also present in
> Christoph's image. I wonder if this is not light leaking along mesh
> edges.... Comments welcome.

It's not specifically leaking along mesh edges, but through /any/ edges. 
Surprisingly, similar artifacts can be observed with CSG as well. Up to 
this day I haven't really figured out what's causing this, but the 
number of radiosity bounces (i.e. recursion_limit) does seem to play a 
role (I think I've never seen these artifacts with recursion_limit 2 or 
lower).

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.01.2014 10:18, schrieb Ive:
> Am 10.01.2014 10:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> And I'm not sure about this low adc_bailout within the radiosity block,
>>> if such low value is needed shouldn't it go into the global settings
>>> block itself - to keep the photons visible?
>>
>> I put in that low adc_bailout in preparation to the photons/caustics
>> generation, as Christoph suggested earlier in this thread.
>>
> Yes, thats what I'm saying too, but it seems you missed the "global
> settings block itself" - and not the radiosity block within the global
> settings.

Actually I proposed to use such a low value in the global settings 
/photons/ block.

The general global settings adc_bailout, as well as radiosity 
adc_bailout, should both be ok with more conservative values.

Post a reply to this message

On 10-1-2014 12:47, clipka wrote:
> Am 10.01.2014 10:18, schrieb Ive:
>> Am 10.01.2014 10:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>> And I'm not sure about this low adc_bailout within the radiosity block,
>>>> if such low value is needed shouldn't it go into the global settings
>>>> block itself - to keep the photons visible?
>>>
>>> I put in that low adc_bailout in preparation to the photons/caustics
>>> generation, as Christoph suggested earlier in this thread.
>>>
>> Yes, thats what I'm saying too, but it seems you missed the "global
>> settings block itself" - and not the radiosity block within the global
>> settings.
>
> Actually I proposed to use such a low value in the global settings
> /photons/ block.
>
> The general global settings adc_bailout, as well as radiosity
> adc_bailout, should both be ok with more conservative values.
>

Right. I missed that, as I am now entering unknown territory ;-)

I have some read-up on the matter to do, and some testing.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 10-1-2014 12:44, clipka wrote:
> The proper approach to compensate would be to increase the walls'
> brightness. /If/ you want to compensate at all. Looks natural enough to
> me, too.

I agree and, as far as I am concerned, I do not want to compensate. 
Increasing luminosity helps too while keeping the balance between light 
and dark within acceptable limits.

>
>> The bright dots are still a problem indeed. They are also present in
>> Christoph's image. I wonder if this is not light leaking along mesh
>> edges.... Comments welcome.
>
> It's not specifically leaking along mesh edges, but through /any/ edges.
> Surprisingly, similar artifacts can be observed with CSG as well. Up to
> this day I haven't really figured out what's causing this, but the
> number of radiosity bounces (i.e. recursion_limit) does seem to play a
> role (I think I've never seen these artifacts with recursion_limit 2 or
> lower).
>
Well, from my latest render (not included here) I must say that leaking 
also appears with recursion_limit 2.

Iirc, Christoph Hormann treated this problem in Megapov with a radiosity 
patch.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Does not seem much but I got rid of the light leaking. Following was done:

- meshes (walls, archs, windows) inc files through Poseray export as obj 
files (weld vertices and recalculate normals);

- in Silo: giving thickness to the walls with the Shell utility (this 
probably exists also in Blender?);

- in Silo: closing of the arch object and extending it a little bit 
above the ceiling;

- in Silo: lowering the sky-windows which were /floating/ just above the 
building letting light leak in-between;

- saving the different objects as obj files and through Poseray export 
to POV as mesh2 files (recalculate normals);

- in the POV scene: replace the mesh{} objects by the mesh2{} ones;

Everything seems now to be in place to tackle the photons and caustics.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (558 KB)

Preview of image 'test.png'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

>
> - in the POV scene: replace the mesh{} objects by the mesh2{} ones;
>

Povray slows down the miscalculation if matrix is used
I didn't find the solution to calculate normal*matrix for mesh2
Maurice Raybaud it is possible will make

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.01.2014 13:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> Does not seem much but I got rid of the light leaking. Following was done:
>
Seems much to me.

BTW before you start a final render: your aspect ratio for the image is 
wrong!

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 11-1-2014 15:41, Ive wrote:
> Am 11.01.2014 13:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>> Does not seem much but I got rid of the light leaking. Following was
>> done:
>>
> Seems much to me.

I know ;-) it is a fair lot of work for only little specks of light, but 
the result is essential of course.

>
> BTW before you start a final render: your aspect ratio for the image is
> wrong!

hmm... 1000x800 and using all camera parameters as given by the original 
scene file. I shall change the right to -x*image_width/image_height and 
see if that makes any difference.

Presently, I have difficulties with photons/caustics. THey do not show 
on the ceiling...

Ultimately, I shall add a media to the scene to show some dust in the 
atmosphere, but not too much.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-1-2014 14:20, LanuHum wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> - in the POV scene: replace the mesh{} objects by the mesh2{} ones;
>>
>
> Povray slows down the miscalculation if matrix is used
> I didn't find the solution to calculate normal*matrix for mesh2
> Maurice Raybaud it is possible will make
>
not essential presently, I used mesh2{} because Poseray does not export 
to mesh{} (well, an older version does, but I prefer mesh2 anyway). The 
result should be the same. One of the advantages of mesh2{} is that 
/materials/ are given to the objects, so there are more possibilities 
especially for translucent objects).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-1-2014 16:14, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-1-2014 15:41, Ive wrote:
>> BTW before you start a final render: your aspect ratio for the image is
>> wrong!
>
> hmm... 1000x800 and using all camera parameters as given by the original
> scene file. I shall change the right to -x*image_width/image_height and
> see if that makes any difference.
>

Hmmm, yes, that makes indeed a difference.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (133 KB)

Preview of image 'test.png'

Am 11.01.2014 16:14, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> hmm... 1000x800 and using all camera parameters as given by the original
> scene file. I shall change the right to -x*image_width/image_height and
> see if that makes any difference.
>
well, 1000 / 800 makes 1.25 and I bet 100 PovCoins this is not what you 
have. The squeezed chairs do give it away.


> Presently, I have difficulties with photons/caustics. THey do not show
> on the ceiling...
>
I cannot add anything that's not already in the docs: you need a photon 
block within global_settings, make the main light source emit them, make 
the water (and Suzanne) a target and shoot a few millions of them... and 
do not forget to turn collect off for objects where it is not important 
to speed up the render.

> Ultimately, I shall add a media to the scene to show some dust in the
> atmosphere, but not too much.
>
Thomas, you are a patient one ;)

But what *I* really would like to see is Suzanne made of tinted glass.


-Ive

Post a reply to this message

I have difficulties with photons/caustics. If you compare with 
Christoph's image of the scene, you will see there how the water plays 
on the ceiling. I cannot reproduce this.

I am using the following settings:

global_settings:
   photons {
     spacing 0.01
     gather 20, 100
     autostop 0
     jitter 0.5
     max_trace_level 15
     adc_bailout 1/10e5
   }

objects:
object {suzanne_ob
   interior {
     ior 1.5
     dispersion 1.05
     dispersion_samples 10
     caustics 1.0
     //fade_distance 5
     //fade_power 2
   }
   photons {
     target
     refraction on
     reflection on
     collect off
   }
}

object {water_ob
   interior {
     ior 1.3
     dispersion 1.05
     dispersion_samples 10
     caustics 1.0
     //fade_distance 5
     //fade_power 2
   }
   photons {
     target
     refraction on
     reflection on
     collect off
   }
}

light_source:
     photons { refraction on reflection on }

glass surfaces:
photons {pass_through}

How can I tweak these parameters?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-1-2014 16:53, Ive wrote:
> Am 11.01.2014 16:14, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> hmm... 1000x800 and using all camera parameters as given by the original
>> scene file. I shall change the right to -x*image_width/image_height and
>> see if that makes any difference.
>>
> well, 1000 / 800 makes 1.25 and I bet 100 PovCoins this is not what you
> have. The squeezed chairs do give it away.

Yes, the difference comes from:
original right: <-1.0799999982118607, 0, 0> results in squeezed chairs
my (new) right: -x*image_width/image_height gives the chairs correctly

I suppose passing from Blender to POV introduces differences.

>
>
>> Presently, I have difficulties with photons/caustics. THey do not show
>> on the ceiling...
>>
> I cannot add anything that's not already in the docs: you need a photon
> block within global_settings, make the main light source emit them, make
> the water (and Suzanne) a target and shoot a few millions of them... and
> do not forget to turn collect off for objects where it is not important
> to speed up the render.

See my post below.

>
>> Ultimately, I shall add a media to the scene to show some dust in the
>> atmosphere, but not too much.
>>
> Thomas, you are a patient one ;)

I am, if the render time remains manageable. Somehow, presently I am at 
about 1 hour.

>
> But what *I* really would like to see is Suzanne made of tinted glass.

yes, that is still something I need to tweak.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.01.2014 16:55, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> I have difficulties with photons/caustics. If you compare with
> Christoph's image of the scene, you will see there how the water plays
> on the ceiling. I cannot reproduce this.

Don't forget to make the ceiling windows pass_through.

Post a reply to this message

Le 14-01-10 04:06, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> Just for a quick test I switched off the normals here. I doubled again
> the luminosity and now the shadowy parts come out better.
>
> I wonder if the leaking along the edges cannot be remedied by better
> meshes. The present ones are of very low resolution (a pillar face is
> just two triangles for instance). That might give problems. I am going
> to have the walls through Silo and process them a bit.
>
> Thomas

A pilar face using only 2 triangles don't mean low quality as those two 
are realy all that is needed.

Some slight beveling of the edges /may/ help some.

Another solution is to add something behind the mesh, or give it some 
actual thickness, especialy near the corners where some radiosity 
samples can sample areas of the bright sky or that receive direct 
illumination.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 11-1-2014 22:27, Alain wrote:
> A pilar face using only 2 triangles don't mean low quality as those two
> are realy all that is needed.

Yes, I thought so too after I posted :-)

>
> Some slight beveling of the edges /may/ help some.

Editing the object, it appears that there /is/ some bevelling present on 
the arches and pillars.

>
> Another solution is to add something behind the mesh, or give it some
> actual thickness, especialy near the corners where some radiosity
> samples can sample areas of the bright sky or that receive direct
> illumination.

Has been done since.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-1-2014 20:00, clipka wrote:
> Am 11.01.2014 16:55, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> I have difficulties with photons/caustics. If you compare with
>> Christoph's image of the scene, you will see there how the water plays
>> on the ceiling. I cannot reproduce this.
>
> Don't forget to make the ceiling windows pass_through.
>

They are.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

After improving suzanne's and the water's finish, and adding a light 
scattering media to the air, this is what I get.

I think I need to move the light_source a bit again. Moving the 
skylights increased the shadows on the water surface.

Over all, I am well satisfied but before going for the final render I 
would like your opinions.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (427 KB)

Preview of image 'test.png'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

>
> Over all, I am well satisfied but before going for the final render I
> would like your opinions.
>
> Thomas

I don't understand, what is reflected in a mirror in a floor? From what there
the washed-away light spot?

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Does not seem much but I got rid of the light leaking. Following was done:
>
> - meshes (walls, archs, windows) inc files through Poseray export as obj
> files (weld vertices and recalculate normals);
>
> - in Silo: giving thickness to the walls with the Shell utility (this
> probably exists also in Blender?);
>
> - in Silo: closing of the arch object and extending it a little bit
> above the ceiling;
>
> - in Silo: lowering the sky-windows which were /floating/ just above the
> building letting light leak in-between;
>
> - saving the different objects as obj files and through Poseray export
> to POV as mesh2 files (recalculate normals);
>
> - in the POV scene: replace the mesh{} objects by the mesh2{} ones;
>
> Everything seems now to be in place to tackle the photons and caustics.
>
> Thomas

Looking really nice Thomas, I like the subtle media beams! Don't forget to add
pass_through to the photon blocks for the skylights and the water (to allow
reflected caustics on arch and ceiling).

I'm having a go at this myself and found that the walls had nearly 10,000 stray
verts in the mesh that needed merging; and letting PoseRay re-process those
Blender meshes makes the textures so much easier to manage! WIP currently
rendering...

Cheers,
Rob
-------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.01.2014 17:11, schrieb LanuHum:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> Over all, I am well satisfied but before going for the final render I
>> would like your opinions.
>>
>> Thomas
>
> I don't understand, what is reflected in a mirror in a floor? From what there
> the washed-away light spot?

 From what I understand, that's blurred reflections on the floor tiles, 
using an approach dubbed "micronormals": You use standard specular 
reflection on a texture, but also add some normal perturbation (using a 
pattern with some randomness), scaled so small that the structure is 
smaller than the image resolution; last not least you also make sure 
there is sufficient oversampling (often via a bit of focal blur, or 
plenty of anti-aliasing; sometimes it is also done by using an average 
texture comprised of countless duplicates of the base texture with 
random differences in the normal perturbation).

Post a reply to this message

On 12.01.2014 13:13, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> I think I need to move the light_source a bit again. Moving the
> skylights increased the shadows on the water surface.

The image is good but shouldn't light source / skylights be in
the same place as the comparison renders for this test scene? It is
hard to compare the images otherwise, especially the water looks very
different with half the basin in shadow.

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.01.2014 13:13, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Over all, I am well satisfied but before going for the final render I
> would like your opinions.
>
Well, those light beams look always nice but I ask myself: do they 
really add anything to *this* particular scene.
And where are the caustics on the ceiling, IMO for this scene a more 
interesting effect - and your photon settings look fine to me, no idea 
whats wrong there, I did get them immediately.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.01.2014 09:12, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 11-1-2014 20:00, clipka wrote:
>> Am 11.01.2014 16:55, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> I have difficulties with photons/caustics. If you compare with
>>> Christoph's image of the scene, you will see there how the water plays
>>> on the ceiling. I cannot reproduce this.
>>
>> Don't forget to make the ceiling windows pass_through.
>>
>
> They are.

What's your adc_bailout setting in the global photons block?

Post a reply to this message

Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 12.01.2014 13:13, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> > Over all, I am well satisfied but before going for the final render I
> > would like your opinions.
> >
> Well, those light beams look always nice but I ask myself: do they
> really add anything to *this* particular scene.
> And where are the caustics on the ceiling, IMO for this scene a more
> interesting effect - and your photon settings look fine to me, no idea
> whats wrong there, I did get them immediately.
>
> -Ive

Thomas, if this helps, I have the objects setup like this to get the proper
caustics (and "collect off" increased render speed x4):

#include "frame_side_object.inc"
object {
   frame_side_ob
   photons {
      pass_through
      collect off
   }
}

#include "frame_top_001_object.inc"
object {
   frame_top_001_ob
   photons {
      pass_through
      collect off
   }
}

#include "frame_top_object.inc"
object {
   frame_top_ob
   photons {
      pass_through
      collect off
   }
}

#include "water_object.inc"
object {
   water_ob
   photons {
      target
      reflection on
      refraction on
   }
}

#include "pool_object.inc"
object {
   pool_ob
   photons { collect on }
}

#include "arc_object.inc"
object {
   arc_ob
   photons { collect on }
}

#include "walls_object.inc"
object {
   walls_ob
   photons { collect on }
}

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

On 12-1-2014 21:06, Ive wrote:
> Am 12.01.2014 13:13, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Over all, I am well satisfied but before going for the final render I
>> would like your opinions.
>>
> Well, those light beams look always nice but I ask myself: do they
> really add anything to *this* particular scene.

They don't, I agree. What is more, with the light_source again in the 
right place, there is a very distrubing shadow bar across the image 
falling from the skylight.

> And where are the caustics on the ceiling, IMO for this scene a more
> interesting effect - and your photon settings look fine to me, no idea
> whats wrong there, I did get them immediately.

There still are some things I am doing wrong. Robert's code (see his 
post) shows me were I went wrong.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 12-1-2014 17:49, Robert McGregor wrote:

> Looking really nice Thomas, I like the subtle media beams! Don't forget to add
> pass_through to the photon blocks for the skylights and the water (to allow
> reflected caustics on arch and ceiling).

Yes, I still have not fully understood the working of photons. Thanks 
for the code you posted later, that is going to help.

>
> I'm having a go at this myself and found that the walls had nearly 10,000 stray
> verts in the mesh that needed merging; and letting PoseRay re-process those
> Blender meshes makes the textures so much easier to manage! WIP currently
> rendering...

Indeed. All vertices had to be merged in the objects. I only did that 
for the relevant objects I needed to change however. I left the others 
alone.

Looking forward to your version!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 12-1-2014 18:53, clipka wrote:
> Am 12.01.2014 17:11, schrieb LanuHum:
>> I don't understand, what is reflected in a mirror in a floor? From
>> what there
>> the washed-away light spot?
>
>  From what I understand, that's blurred reflections on the floor tiles,
> using an approach dubbed "micronormals": You use standard specular
> reflection on a texture, but also add some normal perturbation (using a
> pattern with some randomness), scaled so small that the structure is
> smaller than the image resolution; last not least you also make sure
> there is sufficient oversampling (often via a bit of focal blur, or
> plenty of anti-aliasing; sometimes it is also done by using an average
> texture comprised of countless duplicates of the base texture with
> random differences in the normal perturbation).
>

That is right. I used micronormals here. Just a very small granite 
normal. In a future version I intend to use UberPOV's blurred 
reflections instead.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thanks a lot Robert! I can see were I go wrong in my code!

I am in the learning process as these are my first time ever photons :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Got them!

A crude render as test but I got the caustics right now. They show on 
the ceiling.

Thanks to Robert showing me the way.

Comments?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (408 KB)

Preview of image 'test.png'

Adding some environment...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (417 KB)

Preview of image 'test.png'

"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
>
> #include "walls_object.inc"
> object {
>    walls_ob
>    photons { collect on }
> }
>

I thought all objects defaulted to "collect on" anyway? Could this be where I
have gone wrong with photons in the past?

Sean

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote in message 
news:52cd5186@news.povray.org...
> With only a few necessary corrections (see p.general) this is a first
> brutish render of the test scene provided by LanuHum. Added basic
> radiosity too.
>
> Thomas

First attempt.
I am replacing some of the objects with ones more suitable for Pov.
 Sphere{}.
 Isosurface for water.
 Copies for Mesh2{}: chair, floor tiles.

Todo: CSG door, shelf, and pool.

Comments welcome:

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'New_test_pov_b.png' (361 KB)

Preview of image 'New_test_pov_b.png'

On 13-1-2014 10:53, s.day wrote:
> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
>>
>> #include "walls_object.inc"
>> object {
>>     walls_ob
>>     photons { collect on }
>> }
>>
>
> I thought all objects defaulted to "collect on" anyway? Could this be where I
> have gone wrong with photons in the past?
>

I thought so too indeed. It looks like they do /not/ default to this. As 
far as I know, this is not mentioned in the docs.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 13-1-2014 10:19, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Adding some environment...
>
> Thomas

Note that the use of fog{} is killing the caustics.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.01.2014 10:53, schrieb s.day:
> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
>>
>> #include "walls_object.inc"
>> object {
>>     walls_ob
>>     photons { collect on }
>> }
>>
>
> I thought all objects defaulted to "collect on" anyway?
>

Indeed. POV-Ray help in chapter 3.4.4.4.2 says so and therefor I didn't 
see anything wrong with Thomas' code. And POV did behave like this back 
in the past.
I was just a lucky to add collect on/off anyway anywhere.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 13-1-2014 13:40, Ive wrote:
> Indeed. POV-Ray help in chapter 3.4.4.4.2 says so and therefor I didn't
> see anything wrong with Thomas' code. And POV did behave like this back
> in the past.
> I was just a lucky to add collect on/off anyway anywhere.
>

Maybe the default has been broken then?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 14-1-2014 12:03, StephenS wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote in message
> news:52cd5186@news.povray.org...
>> With only a few necessary corrections (see p.general) this is a first
>> brutish render of the test scene provided by LanuHum. Added basic
>> radiosity too.
>>
>> Thomas
>
> First attempt.
> I am replacing some of the objects with ones more suitable for Pov.
>   Sphere{}.
>   Isosurface for water.
>   Copies for Mesh2{}: chair, floor tiles.
>
> Todo: CSG door, shelf, and pool.
>
> Comments welcome:

Still too dark but that can be amended easily. All objects do not need 
to be replaced by mesh2{}, only those which need proper tweaking for 
photons and such but it is a rewarding exercise nonetheless.

a water isosurface might be a good move indeed...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Okay, here's an attempt I'm finally happy enough with to post.

I added a third chair after fixing the broken chair mesh, but then decided to
just keep the rest of the meshes in the original versions for better comparison
with the other render engines. I did instance the walls and scale up 1.001 to
eliminate the light-leaking.

Thanks to Christoph and Thomas for the proper light position and tips about
wonky materials and radiosity settings.

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rwm_lanuhum_wip3.png' (2531 KB)

Preview of image 'rwm_lanuhum_wip3.png'

Am 13.01.2014 13:10, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 13-1-2014 10:53, s.day wrote:
>> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
>>>
>>> #include "walls_object.inc"
>>> object {
>>>     walls_ob
>>>     photons { collect on }
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> I thought all objects defaulted to "collect on" anyway? Could this be
>> where I
>> have gone wrong with photons in the past?
>>
>
> I thought so too indeed. It looks like they do /not/ default to this.

Yet they do.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 13-1-2014 13:40, Ive wrote:
> > Indeed. POV-Ray help in chapter 3.4.4.4.2 says so and therefor I didn't
> > see anything wrong with Thomas' code. And POV did behave like this back
> > in the past.
> > I was just a lucky to add collect on/off anyway anywhere.
> >
>
> Maybe the default has been broken then?
>
> Thomas

collect on /is/ supposed to be the default, and Christoph says it still is.

Regardless, I too have had many weird photon issues in the past, so when using
multiple transparent/reflecting/refracting surfaces I typically specify on or
off in each photon block just for my own sanity in optimizing render times.

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

On 13-1-2014 19:17, Robert McGregor wrote:
> Okay, here's an attempt I'm finally happy enough with to post.
>
> I added a third chair after fixing the broken chair mesh, but then decided to
> just keep the rest of the meshes in the original versions for better comparison
> with the other render engines. I did instance the walls and scale up 1.001 to
> eliminate the light-leaking.
>
> Thanks to Christoph and Thomas for the proper light position and tips about
> wonky materials and radiosity settings.
>

I find it interesting how each individual interprets the scene 
differently. Good work indeed.

One comment I could make perhaps is that the sky seems to be all around 
the building with no ground plane present. I think this influences the 
lighting of the interior.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Another comment (on the geometry): You can see light leaking around the 
skylights. This is due to their position /above/ the building, leaving a 
thin space in between.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
....
> Still too dark but that can be amended easily. All objects do not need
> to be replaced by mesh2{}, only those which need proper tweaking for
> photons and such but it is a rewarding exercise nonetheless.
>
> a water isosurface might be a good move indeed...
>
> Thomas

The Mesh2{} comment was more for the use of copies.

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

"StephenS" <stephen@nospam> wrote:
....
> First attempt.
> I am replacing some of the objects with ones more suitable for Pov.
>  Sphere{}.
>  Isosurface for water.
>  Copies for Mesh2{}: chair, floor tiles.
>
> Todo: CSG door, shelf, and pool.
....

Door and pool have now been replaced.
Second try.

Comments welcome:

Stephen S

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'new_test_pov_c.png' (456 KB)

Preview of image 'new_test_pov_c.png'

I can continue tweaking parameters, but I think this is about the best I 
can produce. So here is my final image.

Render time: 1h 8', using 6 threads and +a0.01, version 3.7.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (588 KB)

Preview of image 'test.png'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I find it interesting how each individual interprets the scene
> differently. Good work indeed.
>
> One comment I could make perhaps is that the sky seems to be all around
> the building with no ground plane present. I think this influences the
> lighting of the interior.

Yes, I didn't really think about that, my building is just floating in space;
I'll add a ground plane/fog and see how that works out.

I'm not sure why this scene is so compelling - I can't stop playing with it...
here's a detail render of the caustics in and around the tub.

Now, maybe a better texture and some SSLT on that tub....

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rwm_lanuhum_wip3_detail.png' (2593 KB)

Preview of image 'rwm_lanuhum_wip3_detail.png'

On 14-1-2014 15:05, Robert McGregor wrote:
> I'm not sure why this scene is so compelling - I can't stop playing with it...
> here's a detail render of the caustics in and around the tub.

True. There are a lot of possibilities with this scene. It is an 
excellent test ground for different things: aa, photons, sslt indeed, 
glass and metal, (blurred) reflections...

I stop now to do other interesting things but I may come back later at 
least as a training ground.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message