 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs.
First some background, which I vainly imagine would be interesting to
people other than myself. I started writing a prefab render rig a
couple days after I downloaded POV-Ray in 2003, and I've been obsessed
with tweaking successive rigs ever since. My first try included an
infinite checkered plane with outdoorsy lighting. Why outdoors?
Because I like the visual effect of the warm direct lighting and cool
shadows.
It didn't take long before I was struggling with moiré artifacts. In my
first reboot, I simply gave up on the checkered plane. My second reboot
in 2004 had two modes: an outdoor mode with a grassy bozo pattern that
is not prone to distracting artifacts; and an indoor mode with a finite
checkered floor. (I absolutely had to keep a checkered plane in some
form, as I was still carefully considering my first p.b.i post. I was
planning to post a workaround for the Fresnel/dispersion bug using a
reflective glass sphere, but then the dev team fixed that bug in v3.6,
leaving me at a loss for ideas. I think my first p.b.i post was "RSOCP
overkill.")
There the grassy plain remained for the next few years, with little more
than the occasional surface normal tweak. Then for Thanksgiving 2007, I
was invited to my brother's girlfriend's family's place in the
Shenandoah Mountains, and I knew I had to have some hills for my render
rig. (Funny how the hills in my native Virgin Islands never inspired me
that way. New Yorkers don't visit the Statue of Liberty either.) I
just threw up a layered pigment onto my sky_sphere, and was done for the
next few years.
Over the years, the code grew increasingly disorganized, and I was
becoming concerned about namespace issues, so in 2012, I decided it was
time for another reboot. This time I used a height field for the hills
instead of a sky_sphere pigment. At first I just used a bumpy texture
to simulate a forest, but 3 years ago I made the fool decision to
include actual tree objects. Since finished art products are strictly
off-label for this project, the tree models could be very rudimentary.
Spheres and simple CSG forms would do.
As it turns out, forests are extremely memory intensive, so now I'm
looking at mesh trees to see if they will save memory over CSG objects,
with a bonus of looking more realistic. But before I can do the memory
test, I must have a tree model. POV-Tree? TomTree? Bah, PERL, Java,
and real life in too much disarray to tolerate the learning curve. OK,
I'll just roll my own /slightly/ more realistic trees.
An isosurface forest is another option, which vanquishes memory
concerns, but I haven't yet come up with a function that I'm satisfied with.
TL;DR: I'm now working on very low detail mesh trees.
I found the black borders on the smooth triangles unexpectedly
disturbing. They do show up on my height field hills under some
circumstances, but are quite tolerable. But seeing them cap my trees
sent me straight to double_illuminate. Disappointingly, double
illumination had its own peculiarities near the shadow lines. And when
I added surface normals to the trees, it got really weird. As you can
see, with double illumination the facet edges at the shadow lines are
far more noticeable, the shadow contrast is weaker on the normal
pattern, and the lit areas near the shadow lines are just surreal.
Tradeoffs. I'm looking to skip the double illumination and tolerate the
black borders.
P.S. These images use the indoor setting of the 4th prefab render rig.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'make_sotd_tree_meshes-pbi.jpg' (105 KB)
Preview of image 'make_sotd_tree_meshes-pbi.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2018 1:33, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs.
>
> [snip]
> Tradeoffs. I'm looking to skip the double illumination and tolerate the
> black borders.
>
> P.S. These images use the indoor setting of the 4th prefab render rig.
A bell is tolling in the back of my mind but I am unable to find it in
the mental mist, yet.
Without too much memory load increase you could increase the mesh
resolution. Between 2 and four times should do the trick.
Your mention of an isosurface forest could be horribly slow to render.
Gilles Tran used isosurface trees in some of his scenes but you
certainly know that.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
>
> TL;DR: I'm now working on very low detail mesh trees.
> I found the black borders on the smooth triangles unexpectedly
> disturbing... Disappointingly, double
> illumination had its own peculiarities near the shadow lines.
>
> Tradeoffs. I'm looking to skip the double illumination and tolerate the
> black borders.
>
IMO, the trees with double_illuminate ON look (tolerably) better than with it
off. The trees appear to blend in better with your background sky pigment. From
a practical viewpoint, I think the non-smooth 'appearance' of the outside tree
borders (the straight triangle edges) would be more noticable to someone's eyes
than the double_illumination artifacts. Ditto the triangle edges within the body
of the tree. Since the trees are *designed* to be very low-memory-intensive (and
will not the 'central focus' of any render that you use them in), they look
quite decent. (Although, I would suggest upping the triangle count just a
little, to make them a bit smoother overall-- which, I admit, might erase the
nice 'angular' effect of the outside tree edges!)
Another *possible* way around the problem would be to use an interior texture as
well-- maybe with the color of the sky (or the tree itself?), and a high ambient
or emission value for its finish. Then those edge normals might 'pick up' that
interior color rather than, say, black. Just a theory.
And a gentle reminder: #declaring the tree meshes themselves beforehand will
allow almost unlimited copies with very little memory increase.
As for the double_illuminate artifacts at the edges of the trees: Does the
width/size of those rendered artifacts diminish if the trees are placed far into
the distance? Or does the width remain constant (i.e., possibly becoming as
large as an entire distant tree?) In other words, are the artifacts independent
of camera-tree distance? I don't think I've ever tried such an experiment to
see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> An isosurface forest is another option, which vanquishes memory
> concerns, but I haven't yet come up with a function that I'm satisfied with.
Have you considered using isosurfaces for *individual* tree models? I'm thinking
of maybe an egg-shaped function, plus some f_noise(...) to break up the surface.
I would imagine that maybe five to ten different tree models might suffice to
populate an entire (random) forest. And AFAIU currently, copies of the
isosurfaces *may* not take up much extra memory; Clipka mentioned this in a
recent thread (the last entry there)...
http://news.povray.org/povray.advanced-users/thread/%3C5b57c158%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
>
> As you can see, with double illumination [on]...the lit areas near the shadow
> lines [in the body of the tree] are just surreal.
>
I've noticed that too, when rendering low-resolution height_fields. It *does*
seem to be a tradeoff, between using smooth triangles vs. unsmooth, and
double_illuminate vs. no D_I. I've not been able to come up with a satisfactory
compromise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-02 03:10 PM (-4), Kenneth wrote:
>
> (Although, I would suggest upping the triangle count just a
> little, to make them a bit smoother overall-- which, I admit, might erase the
> nice 'angular' effect of the outside tree edges!)
More striking than the edge effect are the cast shadows. The smooth,
round shadows of the spheres I'm currently using are quite jarring when
cast on the other trees, especially against the texture normals. (See
the cast shadow near the right edge of show_sotd_hills_res-hf1-3.jpg.
The other image is of the height field at the same scale. In general,
though, the hills would be *much* farther away, with the details that
much less noticeable. The 'max' figure is the scaling of the noise
function in feet[1], but my default is 5000.)
> And a gentle reminder: #declaring the tree meshes themselves beforehand will
> allow almost unlimited copies with very little memory increase.
That's exactly what I had in mind.
> As for the double_illuminate artifacts at the edges of the trees: Does the
> width/size of those rendered artifacts diminish if the trees are placed far into
> the distance? Or does the width remain constant (i.e., possibly becoming as
> large as an entire distant tree?) In other words, are the artifacts independent
> of camera-tree distance? I don't think I've ever tried such an experiment to
> see.
The artifacts are an effect of the fake normals on the triangles
themselves (search Smooth Triangle Artifact in the wiki), so they would
scale down with the tree distance.
_________________
[1] I did not choose my country of birth, but if I ever release the
source code, meters will be an option.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'show_sotd_hills_res-hf1-3.jpg' (53 KB)
Download 'show_sotd_hills_res-hf0-3.jpg' (43 KB)
Preview of image 'show_sotd_hills_res-hf1-3.jpg'
Preview of image 'show_sotd_hills_res-hf0-3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-02 02:43 AM (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> Your mention of an isosurface forest could be horribly slow to render.
So it is.
> Gilles Tran used isosurface trees in some of his scenes but you
> certainly know that.
I haven't examined how he did most of his scenes; although I am
impressed at how he managed to render a rainy scene in "The Wet Bird"
without rendering any rain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> [1] I did not choose my country of birth, but if I ever release the
> source code, meters will be an option.
Miles, baby. Miles.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '870608197461278720.jpg' (123 KB)
Preview of image '870608197461278720.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2018 21:50, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
>> [1] I did not choose my country of birth, but if I ever release the
>> source code, meters will be an option.
>
> Miles, baby. Miles.
>
:D
Ells baby, ells. :)
"Gie 'im an inch, an he'll tak an ell"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ell#Ell_(Scots)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Ells baby, ells. :)
>
> "Gie 'im an inch, an he'll tak an ell"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ell#Ell_(Scots)
Bloody Ell. That's interesting :) And I have learned something new.
Well done, Lord McAvoy, well done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2018 23:14, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> Ells baby, ells. :)
>>
>> "Gie 'im an inch, an he'll tak an ell"
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ell#Ell_(Scots)
>
>
> Bloody Ell. That's interesting :) And I have learned something new.
>
It makes an ell of a difference. ;)
> Well done, Lord McAvoy, well done.
>
>
>
No it was Tim Cook, of yore, who had the top hat and cane. I'm the one
brandishing the pitchfork and guiding the tumbrel. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2018 23:11, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/08/2018 21:50, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>
>>> [1] I did not choose my country of birth, but if I ever release the
>>> source code, meters will be an option.
>>
>> Miles, baby. Miles.
>>
>
> :D
>
> Ells baby, ells. :)
>
> "Gie 'im an inch, an he'll tak an ell"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ell#Ell_(Scots)
>
LOL
If everybody (ever) switches over to metres, the world will become a
poorer place.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.08.2018 um 08:32 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> If everybody (ever) switches over to metres, the world will become a
> poorer place.
We could still argue about metres vs. meters though...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2018 08:35, clipka wrote:
> Am 03.08.2018 um 08:32 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>> If everybody (ever) switches over to metres, the world will become a
>> poorer place.
>
In the UK we travel in miles but buy petrol in litres. We could do with
using MPL instead of MPG.
> We could still argue about metres vs. meters though...
>
Argue! you? Never :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-8-2018 11:40, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/08/2018 08:35, clipka wrote:
>> Am 03.08.2018 um 08:32 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>
>>> If everybody (ever) switches over to metres, the world will become a
>>> poorer place.
>>
>
> In the UK we travel in miles but buy petrol in litres. We could do with
> using MPL instead of MPG.
>
>
>> We could still argue about metres vs. meters though...
>>
>
> Argue! you? Never :-P
>
This is a case for the Brexit team I guess. Does the UK want to continue
to use the continental written version, or switch to the US version? A
new challenge for Mrs May.
I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 3-8-2018 11:40, Stephen wrote:
>> On 03/08/2018 08:35, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 03.08.2018 um 08:32 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>> If everybody (ever) switches over to metres, the world will become a
>>>> poorer place.
>>>
>>
>> In the UK we travel in miles but buy petrol in litres. We could do
>> with using MPL instead of MPG.
>>
>>
>>> We could still argue about metres vs. meters though...
>>>
>>
>> Argue! you? Never :-P
>>
>
> This is a case for the Brexit team I guess.
Might as well. They are not doing much at the moment.
> Does the UK want to continue
> to use the continental written version, or switch to the US version? A
> new challenge for Mrs May.
>
US version. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons. :-)
> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>
Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> In the UK we travel in miles but buy petrol in litres. We could do with
> using MPL instead of MPG.
You really ought to switch to kilofeet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2018 13:42, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> In the UK we travel in miles but buy petrol in litres. We could do with
>> using MPL instead of MPG.
>
>
> You really ought to switch to kilofeet.
>
I have calibrated strain gauges to kilo inch-pounds.
Close enough?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I have calibrated strain gauges to kilo inch-pounds.
> Close enough?
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
That might be sufficiently acceptable for Quadrophenic purposes, but not being a
power of two might lead to an introduced error, thus inflaming the ire of th
Mods.
I'd start off with a ton, or tonne, depending, and then subdivide from there.
Not being a certified expert in weights and measures, I'm not sure which ton
would be best suited for the purpose - there's long tons, short tons, metric
tons, shit tons, Greek tons, Avoirdupois....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2018 15:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> I have calibrated strain gauges to kilo inch-pounds.
>> Close enough?
>
> Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
>
> That might be sufficiently acceptable for Quadrophenic purposes, but not being a
> power of two might lead to an introduced error, thus inflaming the ire of th
> Mods.
>
If 'twere so then, G' damn their eyes. My cove.
> I'd start off with a ton, or tonne, depending, and then subdivide from there.
> Not being a certified expert in weights and measures, I'm not sure which ton
> would be best suited for the purpose - there's long tons, short tons, metric
> tons, shit tons, Greek tons, Avoirdupois....
>
>
>
It is an actual unit of measure. Used for measuring the tension on
anchor chains.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 3-8-2018 11:40, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2018 08:35, clipka wrote:
>>>> Am 03.08.2018 um 08:32 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>>
>>>>> If everybody (ever) switches over to metres, the world will become a
>>>>> poorer place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the UK we travel in miles but buy petrol in litres. We could do
>>> with using MPL instead of MPG.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We could still argue about metres vs. meters though...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Argue! you? Never :-P
>>>
>>
>> This is a case for the Brexit team I guess.
>
> Might as well. They are not doing much at the moment.
>
Pretty quiet on that front, ain't they? Loitering on the beach, no
doubt. ;-)
>
>
>> Does the UK want to continue to use the continental written version,
>> or switch to the US version? A new challenge for Mrs May.
>>
>
> US version. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons. :-)
I should have expected that answer!
>
>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>
>
> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>
>
LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a case for the Brexit team I guess.
>>
>> Might as well. They are not doing much at the moment.
>>
>
> Pretty quiet on that front, ain't they? Loitering on the beach, no
> doubt. ;-)
>
Hiding under the table?
>>
>>
>>> Does the UK want to continue to use the continental written version,
>>> or switch to the US version? A new challenge for Mrs May.
>>>
>>
>> US version. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons. :-)
>
> I should have expected that answer!
>
Indeed. :-)
>>
>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>
>>
>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>
:-D
I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
But we should not mock the afflicted.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/2018 03:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
likewise
> But we should not mock the afflicted.
why not ... it's become a sport in my household
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2018 07:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
Pricks Often Tell Unsubstantiated Stories?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-04 03:20 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
> On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>>
>
> :-D
> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
So can I. Thanks for that auditory imagery, Stephen. :-P
> But we should not mock the afflicted.
When the affliction is comorbid with narcissism, assholitis, and the
Dunning-Kruger affect, I will mock. Especially when this megalomaniac
who hates dark-skinned people who don't pay lip service to Jesus[1] and
denies that I have a constitutional right to citizenship is making
policy that affects me.
________________
[1] I deliberately phrased it that way, because you know damn well that
the Afflicted One is only pretending to love Jesus.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2018 12:37, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 08/04/2018 03:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
>
> likewise
>
A boon to comedians. :)
>> But we should not mock the afflicted.
>
> why not ... it's become a sport in my household
>
I am quoting the late Frankie Howard. "Mock not the afflicted." was one
of his catchphrases.
And he was certainly "afflicted". ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2018 17:35, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2018-08-04 03:20 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>> On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>>>
>>
>> :-D
>> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
>
> So can I. Thanks for that auditory imagery, Stephen. :-P
>
Not a problem, cuz. :)
Now, if you want an earworm. ;)
Try this from the 80's. Sophia George
https://youtu.be/nDKb4O-l02U?t=22
>> But we should not mock the afflicted.
>
> When the affliction is comorbid with narcissism, assholitis, and the
> Dunning-Kruger affect,
Ooo! it has a name. :)
> I will mock.
Afflicted might be referring to the people who are afflicted by him,
yes, yes?
It is too easy really. But see my reply to Jim.
> Especially when this megalomaniac
> who hates dark-skinned people who don't pay lip service to Jesus[1] and
> denies that I have a constitutional right to citizenship is making
> policy that affects me.
>
Well, he is not making it a secret. At least you can say that of him. :)
> ________________
> [1] I deliberately phrased it that way, because you know damn well that
> the Afflicted One is only pretending to love Jesus.
>
Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>
> Miles, baby. Miles.
LOL! Brilliant.
I always *knew* there was a difference between meters and...uh...yards, but I
could never quite put my finger on it...
Gonna save that image and show it to my mathematically-challenged friends:
PROOF that the U.S. system of measurement is BIGGER and BETTER! I'm sure POTUS
would think so. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs.
>...
> I found the black borders on the smooth triangles unexpectedly
> disturbing. They do show up on my height field hills under some
> circumstances, but are quite tolerable. But seeing them cap my trees
> sent me straight to double_illuminate. Disappointingly, double
> illumination had its own peculiarities near the shadow lines. And when
> I added surface normals to the trees, it got really weird.
About your low-res smooth_triangle trees: I still think that at least the
edge-normal artifacts can be made to look a bit better.
I've been playing around with a low-res height_field, testing double_illuminate
vs. an inside_texture (a RED color in my example), and I think the latter can be
a more effective solution as a tradeoff. From the tests, it's clear that the
object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color (YELLOW), but
rather, the black unlit 'inside' of the closed mesh. (The docs clearly explain
this 'reversed-normal' situation, of course.) But using the recommended
double_illuminate causes strange visual artifacts to appear on an 'applied'
normal{...}.
About the image:
There are to lights in the scene (one of very low intensity from the right, just
to help show some of the bumps normals on that side of the HF, rather than
completely featureless triangle faces that are in shadow.) That by itself helps
with the other problems a little bit.
Image 1 contains the edge artifacts, although they're difficult to see (your
trees are a better test case.)
Image 2-- using double_illuminate-- shows the changed appearance of the bumps
normal. (See the exact center of the image.)
Image 3 shows the true edge artifacts in all their glory ;-) But it also shows
that, by using an *appropriate* color for the inside_texture, it might be
possible to 'hide the edge artifacts in plain sight' so to speak. For example,
if the sky behind the tree edges is a light blue color, and the trees are olive
green, the inside_texture's pigment could be a 'mottled blend' between the two.
A quick and dirty example:
pigment{
bumps
scale <...to be determined...>
color_map{
[0 <...sky blue...>]
[1 <... tree green...>]
}
--- some warp{turbulence...}---
}
finish{ambient 0 emission .5 diffuse 0}
The basic idea is to give a kind of random blue/green color to the edges of the
trees, in a broken-up way, to help them visually blend in better with the sky
and with their neighbors.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'low_rez_hf_tests.jpg' (288 KB)
Preview of image 'low_rez_hf_tests.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But using the recommended
> double_illuminate causes strange visual artifacts to appear on an 'applied'
> normal{...}.
>
"Artifacts" is the wrong word, I admit; the effect is probably a natural result
of 'double-illuminating' the applied normal-- which is not the general way that
normals are expected to interact with a *single* light-source direction. A
better way to describe it would be: a more 'complex' interaction.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2018 19:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/08/2018 17:35, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> On 2018-08-04 03:20 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2018 07:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 3-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 03/08/2018 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wonderful country, great Queen. They all love me over there. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL! (oh dear saints in heaven... I almost pissed my pants...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> :-D
>>> I can hear his voice when I read it. :-)
>>
>> So can I. Thanks for that auditory imagery, Stephen. :-P
>>
>
> Not a problem, cuz. :)
>
> Now, if you want an earworm. ;)
>
> Try this from the 80's. Sophia George
> https://youtu.be/nDKb4O-l02U?t=22
>
>
>
>>> But we should not mock the afflicted.
>>
>> When the affliction is comorbid with narcissism, assholitis, and the
>> Dunning-Kruger affect,
>
> Ooo! it has a name. :)
>
>> I will mock.
>
> Afflicted might be referring to the people who are afflicted by him,
> yes, yes?
>
> It is too easy really. But see my reply to Jim.
>
>
>
>> Especially when this megalomaniac who hates dark-skinned people who
>> don't pay lip service to Jesus[1] and denies that I have a
>> constitutional right to citizenship is making policy that affects me.
>>
>
> Well, he is not making it a secret. At least you can say that of him. :)
>
>> ________________
>> [1] I deliberately phrased it that way, because you know damn well
>> that the Afflicted One is only pretending to love Jesus.
>>
I am afraid he sincerely(?) believes that. However, his guru was/is a
creepy guy in my view...
>
> Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
> Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
>
Till the end of my days, I shall be amazed by the world I live in.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2018 13:55, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 08/03/2018 07:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I am sure the potus has something to twitter about that.
>
> Pricks Often Tell Unsubstantiated Stories?
>
That's very close to the mark indeed! :-)
[I can't do better]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2018 07:30, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
>> Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
>>
>
> Till the end of my days, I shall be amazed by the world I live in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42009219
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Unexpected double_illuminate tradeoffs
Date: 5 Aug 2018 07:06:16
Message: <5b66da28@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-8-2018 9:31, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/08/2018 07:30, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Not Jesus the Mexican welder I met in NM? And yes his wife's name was
>>> Mary and he had a sunscreen on his car that said; "Mary and Jesus".
>>>
>>
>> Till the end of my days, I shall be amazed by the world I live in.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42009219
>
>
Yes... One of those things...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann
Subject: Re: Unexpected double_illuminate tradeoffs
Date: 8 Aug 2018 06:22:45
Message: <5b6ac475$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 03.08.2018 16:10, Bald Eagle wrote:
> I'd start off with a ton, or tonne, depending, and then subdivide from there.
> Not being a certified expert in weights and measures, I'm not sure which ton
> would be best suited for the purpose - there's long tons, short tons, metric
> tons, shit tons, Greek tons, Avoirdupois....
In Khyberspace, we'll have the ser-e kabuli (7 kgs), the ser-e mazari
(14 kgs), the kharwar (560 kgs, or 80 ser-e kabuli), the jerib (2000
m²)... and, of course, for those inclined to intoxication, the maan (4.5
kgs)!
See you there!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> From the tests, it's clear that the
> object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color (YELLOW)...
Ignore that silly comment; my bad.
The only way that the 'edge' triangles/normals could possibly pick up the SKY
color is if those triangles *reflected* the sky. But there's no 'reflection' in
the height_field's texture statement. I got a bit confused in my thinking...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2018 18:16, Kenneth wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> From the tests, it's clear that the
>> object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color (YELLOW)...
>
> Ignore that silly comment; my bad.
>
> The only way that the 'edge' triangles/normals could possibly pick up the SKY
> color is if those triangles *reflected* the sky. But there's no 'reflection' in
> the height_field's texture statement. I got a bit confused in my thinking...
>
Just thinking out loud. Is there a default reflection value?
Is there a list of default values?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18-08-08 à 14:34, Stephen a écrit :
> On 08/08/2018 18:16, Kenneth wrote:
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> From the tests, it's clear that the
>>> object's edge normals are not picking up any of the SKY color
>>> (YELLOW)...
>>
>> Ignore that silly comment; my bad.
>>
>> The only way that the 'edge' triangles/normals could possibly pick up
>> the SKY
>> color is if those triangles *reflected* the sky. But there's no
>> 'reflection' in
>> the height_field's texture statement. I got a bit confused in my
>> thinking...
>>
>
> Just thinking out loud. Is there a default reflection value?
> Is there a list of default values?
>
reflection default to zero.
If you look in the documentation, you'll see that many features do have
defaults, but you need to search around as there is no all encompassing
defaults list that I remember of. There is a list, but it's not complete.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2018 22:04, Alain wrote:
>> Just thinking out loud. Is there a default reflection value?
>> Is there a list of default values?
>>
>
> reflection default to zero.
>
Thanks.
> If you look in the documentation, you'll see that many features do have
> defaults, but you need to search around as there is no all encompassing
> defaults list that I remember of. There is a list, but it's not complete.
It was just curiosity.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-04 07:33 PM (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> TL;DR: I'm now working on very low detail mesh trees.
After a memory test, my priority has switched from revamping the trees
to implementing units.
First of all, I can't seem to find any memory usage statistics in the
POV-Ray 3.7 messages, so I did the test in 3.6. These are the results
for my original model, which uses a sphere for broadleaf trees and a
simple CSG intersection for conifers:
Smallest Alloc: 9 bytes
Largest Alloc: 492040 bytes
Peak memory used: 73732329 bytes
Total Scene Processing Times
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 55 seconds (55 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 8 seconds (8 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 3 seconds (63 seconds)
These are the results of the mesh test:
Smallest Alloc: 9 bytes
Largest Alloc: 492040 bytes
Peak memory used: 85738823 bytes
Total Scene Processing Times
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 54 seconds (54 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 9 seconds (9 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 3 seconds (63 seconds)
It appears that for low-detail models, there is near parity, at least in
POV-Ray 3.6, with the original system having a slight edge. A third
test with more complex CSG used a lot more memory, confirming that for
increased detail, meshes are definitely the way to go. But as long as
I'm not saving memory in the short term, the tree project doesn't seem
urgent.
Meanwhile, my patio is not wheelchair accessible. (What patio? Oh, I
forgot, in rig #4, I added an outdoor mode with a finite checkered
plane. Gotta have that checkered plane.) Of course, this is entirely
academic in a virtual universe, but if practical necessity were the only
factor, I wouldn't be worrying about hills and trees.
From the beginning of this 4th rig, I incorporated unit conversion
constants, because having a hardwired unit had already been a problem.
However, I haven't yet gotten around to integrating scaling factors into
the rig itself. In this state, the unit conversion constants are mostly
useless. This deficiency has reared its head in some of my Object
Collection projects, even though the rig itself is not part of the
uploaded scenes. When I added unit conversions to lrchairs (Leroy is
also an American, and his chair was sized accordingly), I had to fudge
the scaling in my test suite; and I had to do an unreasonable amount of
math to set the camera for the gem settings I posted last year. This is
work a prefab render rig should relieve me of.
I think I should best retrofit my existing code to incorporate
user-chosen units before embarking on a major project entailing
demolition and reconstruction of brick walls, or growing a new forest,
for that matter. As I see it right now, the horticulture can wait.
When the time comes, I am leaning strongly toward an increased triangle
count, without double illumination or interior texture. It turns out
that the current triangle count (95) leaves a disturbingly jagged
silhouette in the forest context, so I'd be going in that direction anyway.
Note: the hills in the attached image are just a textured height field.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'non-accessible.jpg' (103 KB)
Preview of image 'non-accessible.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-02 04:50 PM (-4), Bald Eagle wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
>> [1] I did not choose my country of birth, but if I ever release the
>> source code, meters will be an option.
>
> Miles, baby. Miles.
Bad news for Americans (or any Brits pining for the goode olde days),
but I went ahead and converted the hills scale to meters. Hey, I'm just
an American trying to keep up with the rest of the world. To keep
things simple, the change is irreversible, #SryNotSry. Since I have not
released the code to the public, the only existing legacy scenes are my
own, and I have already updated them.
Miles Davis is grandfathered, it goes without saying.
This rigidity of units does not apply to any shapes I might drop into
the scene. Measuring a gemstone in meters would be rather cumbersome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2018-08-12 05:48 PM (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Meanwhile, my patio is not wheelchair accessible. (What patio? Oh, I
> forgot, in rig #4, I added an outdoor mode with a finite checkered
> plane. Gotta have that checkered plane.)
Well, what do you know? I found a couple of scenes from rig #3 that
have a patio. Looks like I wanted that open air non-moiré checkered
plane earlier than I thought.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'egg_au_yolk.jpg' (61 KB)
Download 'mops-tree_trunk.jpg' (29 KB)
Preview of image 'egg_au_yolk.jpg'
Preview of image 'mops-tree_trunk.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
