Op 16-4-2021 om 09:36 schreef Kenneth:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>
>> I have come to the conclusion that granites21.inc is /based on/
>> granites.inc by Daniel Mecklenberg and not an exact reproduction of his
>> code. If we want those, we need to render the original file separately,
>>    with the initial conditions like Ive and you have done.
>>
> Yes, I agree. And in my personal opinion, the gamma 1.0 'look' is most likely
> what was intended, more or less-- based on my trust of your own knowledge of
> granites, and also the original comments by Daniel M, who seemed to know about
> the subject himself. It would surprise me if he did run his textures with a
> 2.2-gamma and accepted the result-- because I would assume that "North American
> Pink granite" is a well-known and 'standard' type of rock, agreed on by
> geologists.  Not like 'political viewpoints', ha.
> 
> 
Lol! My thoughts entirely. I assume that Daniel Mecklenburg intended his 
textures to be used with an added scale closely related to the 
/dimensions/ of the supporting object where a 10cm wide cube in one 
scene would need a different scale than a 10m wide stone wall in another 
scene. Caveat: if used in the same scene, both objects would of course 
need the same scale! I would argue that, by itself, any POV-Ray texture 
is "dimensionless" and needs a known support in order to be scaled 
accordingly.

I assume that the name "North American Pink" is the commercial name. As 
a geologist, I would call it a 'granodiorite' probably. The same goes 
for the other granites textures which I have been able to trace in the 
Real World.

In any case, as 'simple' users, lets be and remain creative! Also in the 
rgb/srgb matter (ouch! I did it again!). We have a saying here: "buiten 
de lijntjes kleuren" which translates as "colouring outside the lines 
(or the boundaries)" and meaning "breaking the rules" in particular 
concerning the creative process, but also applied to scientific 
research. It promotes serendipity without any doubt imo.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 4/16/2021 um 10:21 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Op 16-4-2021 om 09:36 schreef Kenneth:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have come to the conclusion that granites21.inc is /based on/
>>> granites.inc by Daniel Mecklenberg and not an exact reproduction of his
>>> code. If we want those, we need to render the original file separately,
>>>    with the initial conditions like Ive and you have done.
>>>
>> Yes, I agree. And in my personal opinion, the gamma 1.0 'look' is most 
>> likely
>> what was intended, more or less-- based on my trust of your own 
>> knowledge of
>> granites, and also the original comments by Daniel M, who seemed to 
>> know about
>> the subject himself. It would surprise me if he did run his textures 
>> with a
>> 2.2-gamma and accepted the result

I'm can assure you that in 1996 absolutely nobody did use assumed_gamma 
1.0 for reasons that are actually quite obvious even if you do not 
understand them.
On the other hand my guess would be them someone with the pseudo "Code 
Warrior" (and its implied reference to Mel Gibson) did not use a toy 
operating system like Windows 95 which means he did use assumed_gamma 
1.8 as a consequence.


>> because I would assume that "North 
>> American
>> Pink granite" is a well-known and 'standard' type of rock, agreed on by
>> geologists.  Not like 'political viewpoints', ha.
>>
>>
> Lol! My thoughts entirely. I assume that Daniel Mecklenburg intended his 
> textures to be used with an added scale closely related to the 
> /dimensions/ of the supporting object where a 10cm wide cube in one 
> scene would need a different scale than a 10m wide stone wall in another 
> scene. Caveat: if used in the same scene, both objects would of course 
> need the same scale! I would argue that, by itself, any POV-Ray texture 
> is "dimensionless" and needs a known support in order to be scaled 
> accordingly.
> 
> I assume that the name "North American Pink" is the commercial name. As 
> a geologist, I would call it a 'granodiorite' probably. The same goes 
> for the other granites textures which I have been able to trace in the 
> Real World.
> 
> In any case, as 'simple' users, lets be and remain creative! Also in the 
> rgb/srgb matter (ouch! I did it again!). We have a saying here: "buiten 
> de lijntjes kleuren" which translates as "colouring outside the lines 
> (or the boundaries)" and meaning "breaking the rules" in particular 
> concerning the creative process, but also applied to scientific 
> research. It promotes serendipity without any doubt imo.
> 

Well, my understanding was that this is not just about this particular 
granite file, but about a correct way to convert in general old textures 
from times were *never* assumed_gamma = 1.0 was used.

Obviously this is not the case, sorry for this misunderstanding on my 
part, but frankly you should have said so in the first place and should 
not have added a bunch of buzz words borrowed from color science into 
your header where these words make no sense at all.

So I did completely waste my time here and it seems you did not even 
bother to look at my code - as all I hear is just about comparing 
images. So here is a final image from me also produced with my code but 
with some more educated "guesses" to tweak one user parameter - based on 
the image you did show.

My conclusion: my first thought was right, so please do not mention me 
in any of your files, seriously I mean it.

No need to bother with a reply I'm outa here

so long - Ive

Post a reply to this message

oops, the image...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nap.png' (496 KB)

Preview of image 'nap.png'

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Yes, the 'Cornell box' scene is in SCENES/RADIOSITY (I had to hunt for it.)

I peeked there, but it was the most cursory of late-night scans.  I missed it.
IIRC, it was a complicated scene that had a lot of code that I didn't
understand.

I was not suggesting the idea to show any true colors, but as a means of having
an absolute standard environment in terms of lighting, environment, and scale to
compare "side-by-side" two objects and their textures.

That way any differences are coming from the texture definition and any
quibbling and misunderstandings about lighting, object size, etc can be [mostly]
avoided.

Scene variants can have different light sources for highlighting, etc.
Not sure what a good object would be - a sphere with radial normal map?


And I do wish that kids like you and that DeGroot hoodlum would just GROW UP and
have a little maturity.  You spoiled children clearly flaunt your privilege and
brazenly appropriate the cultural heritage of the POV-Ray late 90's.  It's
shameful - and offensive.  "HOW DARE YOU!"  You're probably even using the wrong
surface modification and not the New Normal!  Rather than demonstrate how we as
a people have evolved and advanced civilization through enlightenment and
diversity, you prattle on in your ego chamber about inconsequential social
constructs that are devoid of relevance to the feelings about someone you've
never met and probably haven't ever heard of before now.  How then can we have
peace?  If you had the least care in the world about notional justice, you'd
burn down the city around you to show it - maybe even plowing through a crowd of
quartz and feldspar lovers with your van in the process.  Allahu Code Warrior!
Perhaps if you two were even woke enough to confront your own [m]in[eral]grained
biases, you'd loot a sto[n]re or two and get a REAL computer with a serious
operating system - like _Apple_.  Then we could take back the means of
production from the Upper Class, smash capitalism, strike a blow for the
underprivileged and oppressed, AND fight Climate Change all in one go!
Then under Full Communism, you could do things with your rightfully
redistributed property the One Right Way and we could - finally - have unity.

(Hey - - - Do you think we could code the granites in Unity and see what they
look like there ... ?)

War is Peace!
Freedom is Slavery!
and Ignorance is Strength.

Contemplate your sins against Big Brother Ive - and _be ashamed_.



Whoops - there goes my alarm - I've [sic] got to go take another Dried Frog Pill
and watch "Beyond Melodrome" ....  Anyone else around here need one?

Post a reply to this message

Op 16-4-2021 om 13:13 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Whoops - there goes my alarm - I've [sic] got to go take another Dried Frog Pill
> and watch "Beyond Melodrome" ....  Anyone else around here need one?
> 
> 

  I thought so this morning. Uncle Bill was looking a little green about 
the eyes and jumping up and down in the backyard mumbling to himself 
about... what was it...? a Cornell Box!? Probably meant the Cornflake 
Box; which is empty by the way. Your turn Ken to go down to the shop 
today. And don't forget the beer! but keep it out of sight of uncle 
Bill; you know what happened last time.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 16-4-2021 om 11:28 schreef Ive:
> So I did completely waste my time here and it seems you did not even 
> bother to look at my code - as all I hear is just about comparing 
> images. So here is a final image from me also produced with my code but 
> with some more educated "guesses" to tweak one user parameter - based on 
> the image you did show.

Not even had the time to seriously look at your code, which I said I 
appreciated indeed. I have also a life besides POV-Ray and your comments 
need time to get digested seriously and commented on. Have a little 
patience, please?

> 
> My conclusion: my first thought was right, so please do not mention me 
> in any of your files, seriously I mean it.

Well... as you wish. No need to get angry. Have you never learned to 
take things in a relaxed way? My god, we use POV-Ray for our /pleasure/ 
or don't we? At least that is my philosophy.

> 
> No need to bother with a reply I'm outa here
> 
> so long - Ive
> 

Sorry to see you go...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 14-4-2021 om 18:00 schreef Alain Martel:

> One thing that can be done with layered textures with a finish in more 
> than one is to simulate varnished metals.
> 
> Have the base texture with metallic highlights and reflection, while the 
> top texture is transparent with fresnel highlights and reflection. Just 
> need to add an interior for the ior.
> 
> The rendered image is quite similar to actual varnished metal.

To tell the truth, I do not find this easy. I looked up the rules Clipka 
put forward (see attached pdf) and applied those as well as I was able 
to a granite texture (see attached image and the code below). I find the 
result too reflective and really difficult to manage correctly. The hue 
changes dramatically with changes to the reflection value or the 
specular albedo block. I need some help here. Thanks!

//start code
   #local Fudge = 1.9;
   #declare T1_MohoganyPol =
   texture {
     pigment {
       granite
       //turbulence 0.4
       color_map {
         [0.00 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<not_0, 
not_0, not_0>))]
         [0.25 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<0.059, 
0.059, 0.059>))]
         [0.25 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<0.086, 
0.027, 0.059>))]
         [0.35 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<0.118, 
0.118, 0.078>))]
         [0.35 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<0.200, 
0.137, 0.110>))]
         [1.00 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<0.769, 
0.329, 0.298>))]
       }
       scale 0.1 //0.8
     }
     /*finish {
       diffuse 0.8
       brilliance 1.5
       specular 0.9
       roughness 0.005
     }*/
     finish {
       diffuse albedo 0.01*(1-Fudge) brilliance 1.5
       specular albedo 0.8*Fudge roughness 0.001
       metallic on
       reflection {0.8 metallic on}
     }
   } //texture

   #declare T2_MohoganyPol =
   texture {
     pigment {
       granite
       turbulence 0.2
       color_map {
         [0.00 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<0.200, 
0.200, 0.200>)) transmit 0.149]
         [0.25 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<0.200, 
0.200, 0.200>)) transmit 0.949]
         [0.25 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<1.000, 
1.000, 1.000>)) transmit 1.000]
         [1.00 ColourSat(SatBoost, BrightBoost, scRGB_to_sRGB(<1.000, 
1.000, 1.000>)) transmit 1.000]
       }
       scale 0.3
       translate <20.0, 20.0, 33.0>
       rotate <0.3, 0.2, 0.0>
     }
     /*finish {
       diffuse 0.8
       brilliance 1.5
       specular 0.9
       roughness 0.005
     }*/
     finish {
       diffuse albedo 0.8*(1-Fudge) brilliance 1.5
       specular albedo 0.2*Fudge roughness 0.001
       fresnel on
       reflection {0.2 fresnel on} conserve_energy
     }
   } //texture

   #declare MohoganyPol_1 = texture {T1_MohoganyPol}

   #declare MohoganyPol_2 =
   material {
     interior {ior 1.5}
     texture {T1_MohoganyPol}
     texture {T2_MohoganyPol}
   } //material
//end code

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg' (83 KB) Download 'clipkas finish 1.pdf' (66 KB)

Preview of image 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
I find the
> result too reflective and really difficult to manage correctly. The hue
> changes dramatically with changes to the reflection value or the
> specular albedo block.

Whoa.  That's super shiny.  It looks like polished marble dipped in
polyurethane.

It took me while of looking over the surface to understand that what I thought
might be some weird artefact is actually the reflection of the edge of your
curved plane and the sky_sphere.

This would be a great texture to apply to make wet granite - maybe a bird bath
or a fountain or something.  I'm sure it would look interesting to texture an
isosurface with this and apply a few off-center radial sine-waves.

Post a reply to this message

Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:

>
> I'm can assure you that in 1996 absolutely nobody did use assumed_gamma
> 1.0 for reasons that are actually quite obvious even if you do not
> understand them.

Gee, I guess I don't, not being blessed with your obviously superior and
all-seeing knowledge.

>
> Well, my understanding was that this is not just about this particular
> granite file, but about a correct way to convert in general old textures
> from times were *never* assumed_gamma = 1.0 was used.
>
> Obviously this is not the case, sorry for this misunderstanding on my
> part but frankly you should have said so in the first place and should
> not have added a bunch of buzz words borrowed from color science into
> your header where these words make no sense at all.

Gee, an actual half-baked apology? From Your Highness?! (with a dose of further
insults, of course) Wow. I'll bet you choked on it, trying to get it out.
>
> So I did completely waste my time here...

Gee, that's sad.
>
> My conclusion: my first thought was right, so please do not mention me
> in any of your files, seriously I mean it.

Gee, that sounds SERIOUS. You mean it! (...or else?...) Personally, I would pay
no attention to such egotistic claptrap. It actually makes me laugh. And if you
felt insulted and wronged and that your *orders* were not being paid attention
to, you would be welcome to take your case to the International Criminal Court
of Justice to seek redress...if they don't laugh too, and kick you out of the
building.

>
> No need to bother with a reply

Yes Sir, if you say so Sir.

 I'm outa here

Gee, that's sad too. I guess you'll be flying back to Mount Olympus now, to be
among your fellow Gods. Well, don't let the door slam on your way out!
*Somehow*, the rest of us will manage to get along...
>
> so long - Ive

Send us a postcard from On High.

------
But I still like your IC app; I'm not yet going to tear it from my computer and
burn its bytes in a fit of childish temper...like you have displayed.

You may take your toys and go home now.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > Yes, the 'Cornell box' scene is in SCENES/RADIOSITY (I had to hunt for it.)
>
> I peeked there, but it was the most cursory of late-night scans...

What?! You only *peeked* at it??  No No No, that is NOT the 'POV-ray way'. The
rules are clearly spelled out in chapters 7,43, and 129 of the 'POV-ray
Behavior' manual. Don't tell me you haven't read them??
>
>
> And I do wish that kids like you and that DeGroot hoodlum would just
> GROW UP and have a little maturity.  You spoiled children clearly flaunt
> your privilege...

SPOILED?! Oh, you mean, because of that $50 million I inherited when I was 2
months old? Naw, I've always been the same lovable, cuddly, ever-so-pleasant
fellow that I was before then. I think.

> ...you'd burn down the city around you to show it - maybe even plowing
> through a crowd of quartz and feldspar lovers with your van in the process.

Personally, I would prefer olivine and soapstone lovers...they always irritate
me...

Post a reply to this message

Op 16/04/2021 om 19:17 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I find the
>> result too reflective and really difficult to manage correctly. The hue
>> changes dramatically with changes to the reflection value or the
>> specular albedo block.
> 
> Whoa.  That's super shiny.  It looks like polished marble dipped in
> polyurethane.
> 
> It took me while of looking over the surface to understand that what I thought
> might be some weird artefact is actually the reflection of the edge of your
> curved plane and the sky_sphere.
> 
> This would be a great texture to apply to make wet granite - maybe a bird bath
> or a fountain or something.  I'm sure it would look interesting to texture an
> isosurface with this and apply a few off-center radial sine-waves.
> 

See? In another post I've (sic) ;-) mentioned "serendipity" and... there 
we are!

Excellent suggestion! I shall put this in another file for later.

[where are my Round Tuits...? I really, I mean: Really, need more Round 
Tuits...]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 17/04/2021 om 05:20 schreef Kenneth:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the 'Cornell box' scene is in SCENES/RADIOSITY (I had to hunt for it.)
>>
>> I peeked there, but it was the most cursory of late-night scans...
> 
> What?! You only *peeked* at it??  No No No, that is NOT the 'POV-ray way'. The
> rules are clearly spelled out in chapters 7,43, and 129 of the 'POV-ray
> Behavior' manual. Don't tell me you haven't read them??

Well... what did you expect, frankly? Big words and bla-bla imo. 
"late-night scans"...!  Whoaaa-ha-ha!

[have another beer]

>>
>>
>> And I do wish that kids like you and that DeGroot hoodlum would just
>> GROW UP and have a little maturity.  You spoiled children clearly flaunt
>> your privilege...
> 
> SPOILED?! Oh, you mean, because of that $50 million I inherited when I was 2
> months old? Naw, I've always been the same lovable, cuddly, ever-so-pleasant
> fellow that I was before then. I think.

Thanks for the loan, btw!  Whoaa-ha-haaa!

[Have abeer an otter...]

> 
>> ...you'd burn down the city around you to show it - maybe even plowing
>> through a crowd of quartz and feldspar lovers with your van in the process.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer olivine and soapstone lovers...they always irritate
> me...

nah... bunch of creeps... [burp]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 11-4-2021 om 14:48 schreef Mr:
> [snip]  Or combine
> two variants of that pattern with both scales using a third masking /warping
> pattern, so that variation seems less homogenous. 

Experimental and with finish commented-out.

Not bad at all!

Thanks for the suggestion. It took some time, but I am getting there.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'layeredtextures_finish_test.jpg' (91 KB)

Preview of image 'layeredtextures_finish_test.jpg'

After reworking the top layer.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg' (98 KB)

Preview of image 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg'

Op 16/04/2021 om 11:28 schreef Ive:
 > Well, my understanding was that this is not just about this particular
 > granite file, but about a correct way to convert in general old textures
 > from times were *never* assumed_gamma = 1.0 was used.
 >
 > Obviously this is not the case, sorry for this misunderstanding on my
 > part, but frankly you should have said so in the first place and should
 > not have added a bunch of buzz words borrowed from color science into
 > your header where these words make no sense at all.
 >

Yve,

Possibly, you are not going to read this, so I write for my own benefit 
(and for those who might be interested) and because I feel I am entitled 
to give a serious answer (after a bit of charivari to vent frustrations).

Initially, this whole exercise was indeed, about upgrading old files. As 
so often happens in the (creative) process, things evolved quite rapidly 
and soon enough granites21 was about generating a new granites 
construction, */based on the work of Daniel Meklenburg/*, I want to 
stress. I am afraid you missed the (gradual) shift to this new approach; 
I was taken by surprise myself I must confess. So, your contribution is 
/not/ a waste of time. On the contrary, it is invaluable for taking up 
the /original/ granites.inc and provide a comprehensive document 
corrected to the use of POV-Ray 3.7+ in a not too distant future. In 
your file there are many things I did not know/been aware of or had 
forgotten. So, again, thanks indeed for your contribution. You are not 
rid of me: in due time I shall give my comments on your file.

You and me, we are both part of the scientific community at large I 
understand. You are a professional (I guess) of the colour sciences; I 
am a professional of the geological sciences. The fundamental difference 
however between us, as I surmise, is that colour sciences are 
/necessarily/ part of the /exact/ sciences, while geological sciences 
are, for a large part, not. Geology is as much about reconstructing, 
from partly preserved items, environments and life from the past, 
without having enough elements to be able to do so in an /exact/ way. 
Where necessary, we make use of the exact sciences, and increasingly so, 
but we are as much indebted to creativity and leaps of faith in order to 
reach consensus and progress. We are rewarded by the visions and 
reconstructions of the ancient world as they evolve under our hands as 
it were.

This is why we have very different approaches to these matters of colour 
in particular. I certainly expect a rigorous approach from you, and I 
would have been surprised if you were not, in the matters of your 
expertise field. On the other hand, while acknowledging this, I feel 
rather free to use some results from the colour sciences as they are 
made available to the POV-Ray community, in maybe a twisty way but 
important for the creative process where the visible results are 
important. So, if I only talk for myself, I use different rgb and/or 
srgb elements together in the same scene and nobody can pinpoint them 
separately I am sure. I understand your irritation about the use of 
possibly inappropriate terms from the colour sciences and I got rid of 
them in the next version of granites21. Understand that my objective was 
to be as precise as possible, but without your kind of understanding 
this is certainly prone to errors.

A last remark. I take exception to your impatience when you mention that 
"it seems you did not even bother to look at my code" and that *within 
24 hours* of your initial post! I resent this indeed. You have 
absolutely no idea about the frequency and time I spend on POV-Ray, 
including reading and commenting on posts. I mentioned that I have a 
life in the Real World, as you have too I am sure, and that takes 
absolute priority. Well, let me tell you that during each 24 hours I 
spend maybe two hour *maximum* to POV-Ray (including posts), divided 
over several snippets of time during the day. So, gimme a break, OK?

All right. Enough about this. I hope you understand if you read this, 
and let's close the matter definitively. If you want to answer, you are 
welcome indeed, but I consider the war axe to be buried from now on.

Cheers

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

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

Sarcasm and satire aside,
You need to deal with the fact that there is a large and rapidly increasing
number of people out in the world that suffer from mental illness.  They may
_seem_ normal in certain isolated settings, but it only takes the slightest
nudge to flip things over that threshold.

> I am afraid you missed the (gradual) shift to this new approach;

Nah,  If you pay attention to the "pattern" of posting, one can surmise that
like some other people, there's some type of monitoring software being used, and
after months or years of absence, they suddenly appear from seemingly nowhere to
get offended over something, rave, and generally "stir the pot".


> You and me, we are both part of the scientific community at large I
> understand.

Be careful.  You're projecting.  Soon you will begin to attempt to rationalize
the irrational and get "sucked in".  I can't tell you how many "scientists",
"professors", "grad students", "experts", "professionals", "mathematicians", and
"programmers" - who you'd think would be logical and at least stable - but you
shift to a certain topic, and it all goes straight out the window.
Imprinting, trauma, brainwashing, and Stockholm Syndrome are all very real, very
dangerous things.   Amongst many others.



> I understand your irritation about

.... everything.  It's the way everyone in the world is now.   They do
archaeology to uncover decades old thing to be offended about, and when that's
too much work, they invent fictitious "new" things to take offense at.

> A last remark. I take exception to your impatience when you mention that
> "it seems you did not even bother to look at my code" and that *within
> 24 hours* of your initial post! I resent this indeed. You have
> absolutely no idea about the frequency and time I spend on POV-Ray,
> including reading and commenting on posts. I mentioned that I have a
> life in the Real World, as you have too I am sure, and that takes
> absolute priority. Well, let me tell you that during each 24 hours I
> spend maybe two hour *maximum* to POV-Ray (including posts), divided
> over several snippets of time during the day. So, gimme a break, OK?

I sometimes get impatient for responses, especially when I'm working on
something and need ("want") some assistance to move past some difficulty and
reach a solution or workaround.  But that's not really the case here.
I'm calling "rabid instability".  Maybe he's taken up eating paint.

I have work, home, child, meals, shopping, laundry, garden, relationships,
neighbors, favors, friends, community involvement, and plenty of other things
that take me away from making any "meaningful progress" on any number of _hobby_
projects, let alone starting any new ones.  And my mechanism of making a "to-do
list" is starting a project so that it's physically there to remind me of it.

> All right. Enough about this. I hope you understand if you read this,
> and let's close the matter definitively. If you want to answer, you are
> welcome indeed, but I consider the war axe to be buried from now on.

Toxic people get offended and will try to flip things around and in true Saul
Alinsky fashion, accuse YOU for holding a grudge.  "Nah, little buddy.  That's
called a boundary."

I've been through all of this in a very personal, very real, very consequential
manner.  So I can see what's going on instantly, with pretty good clarity.  And
I know how to follow the breadcrumbs (vide infra).

"The emotional maturity of a typical narcissistic person is akin to a 5-year-old
child who pouts and refuses to play with a friend in the sandbox because the
friend wants to share the pail and shovel. The 5-year-old refuses to talk with
the friend and angrily storms off to play on the jungle gym with someone else."

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/silent-treatment-a-narcissistic-persons-preferred-weapon-0602145

view-source:https://

Post a reply to this message

Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments and I am 
sadly aware of your own experience of this. The thought passed through 
my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le 
bénéfice du doute" (the Benefit Of The Doubt). What I write remains my 
own conviction, whatever he may make of it.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments ...
> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le

umlauts + accents etc (currently) cause hiccups.


> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.

only two things to .. observe -- why "Yve"?  some Freudian thing?  :-)  concur
with BE, "ingrown toenails", likely.  not your problem.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments and I am
> sadly aware of your own experience of this. The thought passed through
> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le
>
> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.
>
> --
> Thomas

(I'm guessing something got omitted in there, but I understand where you're
going)

Indeed.  Now, we don't really need to "be fair" or give Ive/Yve a fair hearing -
because he can post [virtually] anything he wants here, any time he wants - and
there's damned little any but a select few can do to stop him.

Perhaps like so many before - artistically brilliant and enviously talented -
but psychologically....  wow.

I certainly give plenty of people a fair chance to present their views and
discuss them and what they believe their reasons for having them are.  Maybe we
agree, maybe we don't.   Sometimes we leave it at that, sometimes it begins a
long and continuing conversation that can last years.

But I'm not getting any younger, and I've learned some hard and painful lessons
from people who have quite frankly surprised me by their sudden and inexplicable
U-turns in thought/belief/behaviour.   So I just add them to the list of people
who are lost, too far gone, or too dangerously damaged for me to consider it
worthwhile bothering with.

As you say, I sadly got put through the wringer, but: I _learned_ a lot - both
about other people and myself, had my eyes opened, my illusions dispelled, and
after 10 years am doing well enough.  Although it no longer hurts, it's the pain
of the burn that keeps the child from grasping the hot handle of the pan on the
stove again.
Having instructed college chemistry, I did my due diligence and asked of the
students on the first day of lab, "Before you go and just thoughtlessly pick up
a beaker - what's the difference in appearance between cold glass and hot
glass?"
<silence>
"There isn't any."

I mean, I'm generally a top-of-the-Nolan-chart Libertarian who will genuinely
defend people's God-given Rights to say, or do, all manner of things.  But I
always admonish them with a reminder that "with great power comes great
responsibility" - and freedom and liberty are the fonts of personal power.  So
just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.  Just because I'm
not going to stop you, doesn't mean that it isn't still a bad idea, or that I
won't try to dissuade you.  It also doesn't mean that after you do it, I won't
judge you for it, lay the blame and responsibility at your feet, or think that
it's a swell idea to continue my association with you.  I may, at some future
time, even realize and regret that I may have played some part and bore some
responsibility as well.   Stuff happens.  You can either get all hung up on it -
or move past it, grow, mature, and hopefully do better next time.


You were making an honest and wholly innocent effort to freely give of your
time, experience, and expertise to breathe new life into a set of procedural
textures that are decades old - and he decided to pop in out of nowhere,
snarling like a rabid dog, hurling blanket accusations and baseless attributions
of motive, intent, and willful negligence, and then just as abruptly stormed
out.

So, based on past similar behaviour and a peek under the the facade across the
interwebs, I'm making the call that there's a whole lot going on in that can of
worms, such that I don't see any value in getting drawn into it, and [caveat]
depending on the specific details of location, proximity and resources, one can
never really tell what any given individual is apt to do.  As an American, I was
surprised to find that Norway placed top of the list in 2011.  Maybe the
pressure cooker in TX has just been building up to bursting for the last decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJKJM36lMTE

Now, if I'm wrong or there's some underlying heap of stuff but everything gets
aired out and fixed up - fine.  I can be wrong.  I'm wrong a lot.  I prefer to
be "right", and that's why I spend such an inordinate amount of time learning,
and fixing things, and helping other to improve.


So, if people want to be decent and civilized, so be it.
If they want to be an epithet, that's their choice as well.

But at this point, regardless of whether or not it's "their bat and their ball,"
they can go home if they want to.  It's up to them.

Post a reply to this message

Op 18/04/2021 om 18:23 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
>> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments ...
>> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le
> 
> umlauts + accents etc (currently) cause hiccups.

Oops! I had not noticed that, sorry. I mentioned "the benefit of the 
doubt" there.

> 
> 
>> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.
> 
> only two things to .. observe -- why "Yve"?  some Freudian thing?  :-)  concur
> with BE, "ingrown toenails", likely.  not your problem.
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 

Right! Freudian, no doubt ;-) I have no idea why I mis-typed....

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 18/04/2021 om 19:13 schreef Bald Eagle:
> (I'm guessing something got omitted in there, but I understand where you're
> going)

My fault, sorry. I talked about "benefit of the doubt"

> 
> Indeed.  Now, we don't really need to "be fair" or give Ive/Yve a fair hearing -
> because he can post [virtually] anything he wants here, any time he wants - and
> there's damned little any but a select few can do to stop him.
> 
> [snip]
Again, thanks indeed for your extensive comments. I aappreciate them. I 
have not had too many experiences like this or like what you have been 
up against, and in general I /thought/ I was ready for them, but of 
course it hurts. I am interested in people and why they do or say what 
they do or say. We are social beings aren't we, but the internet is 
something very different indeed and a place where I go reluctantly, with 
the exception of a very few like these ng's.

Well, new lesson learned.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
> [snip]>

Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing 
ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
See the picture as reference.

Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'img_20210417_122316-01.jpg' (1426 KB)

Preview of image 'img_20210417_122316-01.jpg'

Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
> > [snip]>
>
> Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing
> ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
> See the picture as reference.
>
> Paolo

:D   Way to raise the bar, Paolo.


Maybe something akin to Ingo's blob pattern could be used for the ammonites, and
then a repeat warp added in...

Post a reply to this message

Op 19-4-2021 om 11:57 schreef Paolo Gibellini:
> Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
>> [snip]>
> 
> Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing 
> ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
> See the picture as reference.
> 
> Paolo

A challenge? It would be a very interesting to do indeed. Not 
immediately as I want to complete the granites first, but it is /an 
offer I cannot refuse/ ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I think we are on the verge of version 2.0 of granites21.inc. Thanks to 
your comments important improvements have been made or are pending. So, 
thank you indeed for your comprehensive contributions.

Attached are examples of the latest developments. All the textures have 
been wrapped into material{} with an ior of quartz (1.6) and now include 
a finish with fresnel. The tentative to use the albedo keyword however, 
has been abandoned for the time being as too difficult apparently to use 
in any way. Without being exclusive, thanks to Alain and Maurice, and of 
course the usual suspects Bald Eagle and Kenneth.

In a next stage, the use of more elaborate macros are planned, including 
sslt possibilities for instance. Bald Eagle has proposed a first version 
of such a macro and I am going to study it and see how to integrate 
things. In the same way, Jr proposed a HowTo html file where for 
instance the content of the headers and additional info can be provided. 
Thanks to both of you.

More discussions can and will follow here of course, but a new version 
of the package will be uploaded in a new post in due time.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mohoganyfro2-1.jpg' (99 KB) Download 'mohoganyfro2-2.jpg' (99 KB) Download 'mohoganypol2-1.jpg' (101 KB) Download 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg' (98 KB)

Preview of image 'mohoganyfro2-1.jpg'

Preview of image 'mohoganyfro2-2.jpg'

Preview of image 'mohoganypol2-1.jpg'

Preview of image 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg'

Op 20-4-2021 om 14:56 schreef Thomas de Groot:
> More discussions can and will follow here of course, but a new version 
> of the package will be uploaded in a new post in due time.
> 

A couple of things I failed to mention but are particularly important:

1. Following Maurice's suggestion to use a pigment_pattern to vary grain 
sizes, there follows that the use of colour /map/ codes becomes 
important. Bald Eagle suggested this also and we need to determine if 
those should go as different files or whatever, then to be addressed by 
macros.

2. Bald Eagle stressed the importance of starting to make list of "all 
those things we've learned in the past 20 years...". This remained 
dormant until now where I am concerned, but I intend to start to 
actively dig around and document.

Later,

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> to use the albedo keyword however,
> has been abandoned for the time being as too difficult apparently to use
> in any way.

Interested in hearing why - it's always good to document perceived failures as
much as successes.

> In a next stage, the use of more elaborate macros are planned, including
> sslt possibilities for instance.

I simply figured that with something that had transparency like quartz, it might
be a good thing to include.

> Bald Eagle has proposed a first version
> of such a macro and I am going to study it and see how to integrate
> things.

As always, let me know if there are any questions.   The code was mostly to
demonstrate the rudimentary principles and stimulate further discussion and
development.

Now that some of this has percolated in my head for a bit, I think I see
Maurice's concern more clearly - the distribution of the texture elements are
too uniform.  Yes, there are different grain sizes and colors, but there is no
layering, veins, or variation of scale throughout the texture.

Should we have a color_map .map file, or should we have a texture or material
map for something as complex as a granite?   Different grains are different
minerals, with different colors, iors, sslt attributes, finishes, etc.  Maybe
make materials for each individual mineral and then combine them into the final
granite.  More than simplistic, less than explosively complex.   Put some
comments in where we're leaving excessively complicated things out of the stock
new granites, and leave those as avenues to pursue for those wishing to craft
more complex materials.
Part of what I'm thinking is to be able to select from a list of "complete"
materials and use them combinatorially, like in Jonathan Hunt's "Pebbles.pov"

Going even further along that line of include file development, it would be
beneficial to create an array of default versions of all the macro textures so
that the user could address and select them _numerically_.  A macro in the
include file could be called to instantiate such an array if desired, so that
it's not generated each time the include file is called.

I'm thinking that the variation of the granite will probably either have to be
controlled / achieved with layering, or by elevating the level of the underlying
"granite" pattern with a pattern map or function or some other approach.  Here
at the outset, it's not so crucial to actually achieve the goal, but to define
it, so that we can see what theoretically should be done, and then decide what
compromises and tricks can be used to approach that without undue complexity.
Set out some must-have attributes for what, geologically, a proper granite
should embody, and then at least we have something to shoot for.

I also think that the white that got added into some of the granite texture
examples seems "off".   Like they are clouds and are floating over and apart
from the underlying stone and are not a part of it.  Not sure what should be
done to address that, or if you see it as a problem.


Anyway, that's what was bouncing around in my head.

Post a reply to this message

Op 20/04/2021 om 20:06 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> to use the albedo keyword however,
>> has been abandoned for the time being as too difficult apparently to use
>> in any way.
> 
> Interested in hearing why - it's always good to document perceived failures as
> much as successes.
> 
In a nutshell (I want to investigate more of course) I fail to tweak the 
different values (following the rules) without drastically changing the 
colour/aspect of the texture too. Something fundamental escapes me.

>> In a next stage, the use of more elaborate macros are planned, including
>> sslt possibilities for instance.
> 
> I simply figured that with something that had transparency like quartz, it might
> be a good thing to include.
> 
Yes, and it certainly needs more work.

>> Bald Eagle has proposed a first version
>> of such a macro and I am going to study it and see how to integrate
>> things.
> 
> As always, let me know if there are any questions.   The code was mostly to
> demonstrate the rudimentary principles and stimulate further discussion and
> development.
> 
Of course.

> Now that some of this has percolated in my head for a bit, I think I see
> Maurice's concern more clearly - the distribution of the texture elements are
> too uniform.  Yes, there are different grain sizes and colors, but there is no
> layering, veins, or variation of scale throughout the texture.
> 
Yes. I tackled the grainsize differences but I am still not happy with 
the aspect overall.

> Should we have a color_map .map file, or should we have a texture or material
> map for something as complex as a granite?   Different grains are different
> minerals, with different colors, iors, sslt attributes, finishes, etc.  Maybe
> make materials for each individual mineral and then combine them into the final
> granite.  More than simplistic, less than explosively complex.   Put some
> comments in where we're leaving excessively complicated things out of the stock
> new granites, and leave those as avenues to pursue for those wishing to craft
> more complex materials.
> Part of what I'm thinking is to be able to select from a list of "complete"
> materials and use them combinatorially, like in Jonathan Hunt's "Pebbles.pov"
> 
Again, yes. I am now exclusively working on the Mohogany granite and I 
want to explore those avenues you suggest. I realise that I have taken 
on a major investigation :-) and that is ok. I am not bound to a 
deadline. I certainly would like to come up with a credible granite 
material and I am beginning to get "obsessed" by it as it were. Slow 
work of trial and error... discussing the issues helps to focus on the 
weak and strong points, and eliminate dead-end issues.

> Going even further along that line of include file development, it would be
> beneficial to create an array of default versions of all the macro textures so
> that the user could address and select them _numerically_.  A macro in the
> include file could be called to instantiate such an array if desired, so that
> it's not generated each time the include file is called.
> 
yes indeed.

> I'm thinking that the variation of the granite will probably either have to be
> controlled / achieved with layering, or by elevating the level of the underlying
> "granite" pattern with a pattern map or function or some other approach.  Here
> at the outset, it's not so crucial to actually achieve the goal, but to define
> it, so that we can see what theoretically should be done, and then decide what
> compromises and tricks can be used to approach that without undue complexity.
> Set out some must-have attributes for what, geologically, a proper granite
> should embody, and then at least we have something to shoot for.
> 
following what was written higher on. The "depth" aspect of the rock is 
crucial but also difficult to achieve.

> I also think that the white that got added into some of the granite texture
> examples seems "off".   Like they are clouds and are floating over and apart
> from the underlying stone and are not a part of it.  Not sure what should be
> done to address that, or if you see it as a problem.
> 
Imo, the white represents the quartz veins that cut through the 
granites. In the original code they came out as mere "clouds" of grey; I 
brought them back at least as something looking like veins (the top 
texture). See the examples I provided.

> 
> Anyway, that's what was bouncing around in my head.
> 
Quite a lot to have bouncing around in there, sir. ;-)

Your comments are much appreciated and keep me on track.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 20/04/2021 om 20:06 schreef Bald Eagle:
> > ...
> > that the user could address and select them _numerically_.
> yes indeed.

but how will a numpty like self know how to select?  I do hope that there will a
few introductory paragraphs discussing, and a small table laying out, the
principal (POV-Ray) components making "granite"; their role and useful parameter
ranges, etc.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Bald Eagle wrote on 19/04/2021 12:33:
> Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
>>> [snip]>
>>
>> Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing
>> ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
>> See the picture as reference.
>>
>> Paolo
> 
> :D   Way to raise the bar, Paolo.
> 
> 
> Maybe something akin to Ingo's blob pattern could be used for the ammonites, and
> then a repeat warp added in...
> 

I agree with Thomas: we could try to do a challenge, and you could make 
these ideas /concrete/...

Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote on 19/04/2021 13:56:
> Op 19-4-2021 om 11:57 schreef Paolo Gibellini:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
>>> [snip]>
>>
>> Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing 
>> ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
>> See the picture as reference.
>>
>> Paolo
> 
> A challenge? It would be a very interesting to do indeed. Not 
> immediately as I want to complete the granites first, but it is /an 
> offer I cannot refuse/ ;-)
> 

Honestly I used the word challenge in a generic way, but a real 
challenge could be interesting, it would add more content to the inc files.

When you are done...

;-)
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I realise that I have taken
> on a major investigation :-) and that is ok.

So did I while writing this!


> Imo, the white represents the quartz veins that cut through the
> granites. In the original code they came out as mere "clouds" of grey; I
> brought them back at least as something looking like veins (the top
> texture). See the examples I provided.

IIRC, the marble pattern is just a series of repeating lines that attains a
marble look due to the turbulence.   Maybe make a material_map using turbulated
marble and have the granite and quartz materials be the entries.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> but how will a numpty like self know how to select?

You won't.  It will be one those fun mystery things, like a grab-bag, an egg
hunt, voting.  Or dating.

Actually, part of the idea I had, which is somewhat demonstrated in the stuff I
posted for TdG, is that, while not self-documenting, the code can be made to be
"self-documentable" - in that, the verbose feature embedded into all of the
macros could be turned on by such an array instantiation macro, and then you'd
generate a list of entries upon execution.  Really, the idea was to have them
available for random selection...

> I do hope that there will a
> few introductory paragraphs discussing, and a small table laying out, the
> principal (POV-Ray) components making "granite"; their role and useful parameter
> ranges, etc.

Could do that, or issue a #warning depending on values of macro parameters.
Might just imply correct values by using min/max in macro definition, or
comments.

I agree, but I can see the line between "include file" and "geology textbook"
becoming rapidly blurred.

Post a reply to this message

Op 21-4-2021 om 12:51 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> I realise that I have taken
>> on a major investigation :-) and that is ok.
> 
> So did I while writing this!
> 
> 
>> Imo, the white represents the quartz veins that cut through the
>> granites. In the original code they came out as mere "clouds" of grey; I
>> brought them back at least as something looking like veins (the top
>> texture). See the examples I provided.
> 
> IIRC, the marble pattern is just a series of repeating lines that attains a
> marble look due to the turbulence.   Maybe make a material_map using turbulated
> marble and have the granite and quartz materials be the entries.
> 
Turbulence is the keyword assuredly. In the latest version (in examples 
shown above) the quartz veins are partly controlled by warp {turbulence 
...}. Which reminds me: warp {} is another one of those things 
"learned". The use of marble (or agate maybe?) may be useful; 
investigation required.

[Tonight, I am going to browse my old textbooks to get some more useful 
info about granites. Feels like old times; I didn't specialise in hard 
rock geology but rather in sedimentary environments. However, those 
stony things were part of the curriculum and, I think I mentioned it, 
the penultimate ice age conveniently brought Scandinavian granites to 
this region, and I have some of them in my backyard. I wouldn't be 
surprised if they were also related to the North American granites of 
the east coast of US and Canada through the action of plate tectonics. 
But that is a completely different story.]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > but how will a numpty like self know how to select?
>
> You won't.  It will be one those fun mystery things, like a grab-bag, an egg
> hunt, voting.  Or dating.

fun, huh?


> Actually, part of the idea I had, which is somewhat demonstrated in the stuff I
> posted for TdG, is that, while not self-documenting, the code can be made to be
> "self-documentable" - in that, the verbose feature embedded into all of the
> macros could be turned on by such an array instantiation macro, and then you'd
> generate a list of entries upon execution.  Really, the idea was to have them
> available for random selection...

for supplementary info perhaps.  but before the parser can spit out info, I
already need to have a scene, no?  so, I would need (some) information up front.


> > I do hope that there will a
> > few introductory paragraphs discussing, and a small table laying out, the
> > principal (POV-Ray) components making "granite"; their role and useful parameter
> > ranges, etc.
>
> Could do that, or issue a #warning depending on values of macro parameters.
> Might just imply correct values by using min/max in macro definition, or
> comments.
>
> I agree, but I can see the line between "include file" and "geology textbook"
> becoming rapidly blurred.

maybe you misread, maybe I put it poorly.  "geology textbook" -- I'm sure that
some "background" info for each variant would be nice to have, to help
contextualise.  what I tried to say is I'd like to read "why we fake granite in
POV the way we do, how do we work around the limitations of the tools in the
box, this POV-Ray feature is used because ..." etc.

note to Thomas: _please_ correct the spelling to 'mahogany'.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 21-4-2021 om 13:56 schreef jr:
> note to Thomas: _please_ correct the spelling to 'mahogany'.

I have been wondering about the spelling. After (again) assessing the 
occurrence of both spellings on the net, it seems indeed that "Mahogany" 
is the correct one.

I followed Daniel Mecklenburg's original (wrong) spelling from the start.

Additional Names: Dakota Mahagony,Dakota Mahogany,Mahogany 
Dakota,Mahogany Dakota America,Rushmore Mahogany,Select Mahogany,Sunset 
Mahogany,Brown Velvet Mahogany,Whetstone Mahogany,American 
Bouquet,Carnelian Granite    :-)

see: https://www.stonecontact.com/dakota-red-granite/s618

I shall correct but I wonder if I am not going to name it: "Dakota Red 
Granite" instead.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

in news:web.608012f064981f5c79819d986cde94f1@news.povray.org jr wrote:

> "fake granite

've been looking at this thread with half an eye only. I worked in the 
graphics industry for quite a while and one of my jobs was pattern 
designer & colorist. The one thing I learnt,

People want what they think looks like the real thing. Not what the real 
thing actually looks like.

I have a colorised concrete floor in my house. The top layer has been 
ground off into the "grain". "What a nice marble floor" ... it looks more 
like a coarse granite ... it is closest to man made terazzo .... But still 
"a nice marble floor" ;)

https://ingoogni.nl/stuff/IMG_2021_04_21_0277_s.jpg with a nice line of 
light.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 21-4-2021 om 13:56 schreef jr:
> > note to Thomas: _please_ correct the spelling to 'mahogany'.
>
> I have been wondering about the spelling. After (again) assessing the
> occurrence of both spellings on the net, it seems indeed that "Mahogany"
> is the correct one.

perhaps also to do with accessing the net from the Netherlands vs the UK?  both
Google and Wiktionary don't think much -- anything! -- of 'mohogany'.


> I followed Daniel Mecklenburg's original (wrong) spelling from the start.
>
> Additional Names: Dakota Mahagony,Dakota Mahogany,Mahogany
> Dakota,Mahogany Dakota America,Rushmore Mahogany,Select Mahogany,Sunset
> Mahogany,Brown Velvet Mahogany,Whetstone Mahogany,American
> Bouquet,Carnelian Granite    :-)
>
> see: {...}
>
> I shall correct but I wonder if I am not going to name it: "Dakota Red
> Granite" instead.

do "mahogany granites" occur in places other than the Dakotas? if yes, I'd put
the "Dakota Red" plus latin nomenclature with the by-variant "background" info.

(and thanks for making change to spelling)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I think we are on the verge of version 2.0 of granites21.inc. Thanks to
> your comments important improvements have been made or are pending. So,
> thank you indeed for your comprehensive contributions.
>
> Attached are examples of the latest developments. All the textures have
> been wrapped into material{} with an ior of quartz (1.6) and now include
> a finish with fresnel. The tentative to use the albedo keyword however,
> has been abandoned for the time being as too difficult apparently to use
> in any way. Without being exclusive, thanks to Alain and Maurice, and of
> course the usual suspects Bald Eagle and Kenneth.
>
> In a next stage, the use of more elaborate macros are planned, including
> sslt possibilities for instance. Bald Eagle has proposed a first version
> of such a macro and I am going to study it and see how to integrate
> things. In the same way, Jr proposed a HowTo html file where for
> instance the content of the headers and additional info can be provided.
> Thanks to both of you.
>
> More discussions can and will follow here of course, but a new version
> of the package will be uploaded in a new post in due time.
>
> --
> Thomas

Getting closer indeed! Now it has much more scale variations. Credit
(unwillingly :-P) deserved by Ive for showing us merits of the original files.
It might appear one could still prefer Ive's restored original version for the
single occurrences showed. At least its contrast curve could stay the reference.

But as you geologist said, its bigger scale is misleading. For having struggled
to do something that stays consistent at various scales, I know that you're
tackling something more demanding but keep hope, do not give up, try to reach an
as pleasing color curve. Theoretically, it could even get better than the
original as the new pov version can produce more nuances. I believe at this
stage showing both the current one and a much closer up framed render would do
it justice.

*Saturation of the colors should be slighly more and brightness slightly less,
but don't look at the picture straight out of the renderer, only after applying
it the gamma above 1.8 and below 2.5. if your rendered frame display gamma
doesn't do that. I would try playing either in very small amounts with the
brilliance keyword. or switch to another shading model if they did get
implemented since Uberpov? if they haven't the #brilliance shift kind of does
that "shading model translation" (OrenNayar Blinn would have sigmas for various
rocks well referenced I think).

*The specularity looks somewhat wrong sorry to be that vague: did you use
specular or phong, because what I more clearly meant was that it looks like
phong : too blurry.


Now it's just all bonus, though, the material feels really official includable
level already!

Thanks for your work !

Post a reply to this message

ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> in news:web.608012f064981f5c79819d986cde94f1@news.povray.org jr wrote:
>
> > "fake granite
> ...
> People want what they think looks like the real thing. Not what the real
> thing actually looks like.

so true.

for (Heinrich) Heine it was Germany (in English, though it "get's lost in
translation"[*]): if I think of Germany at night, I'm robbed of my sleep.  for
me, it's people.  :-)

[*] "Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht,
     dann bin ich um den Schlaf gebracht".

> I have a colorised concrete floor in my house. The top layer has been
> ground off into the "grain". "What a nice marble floor" ... it looks more
> like a coarse granite ... it is closest to man made terazzo .... But still
> "a nice marble floor" ;)

agree.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 21-4-2021 om 15:47 schreef Mr:
> Getting closer indeed! Now it has much more scale variations. Credit
> (unwillingly :-P) deserved by Ive for showing us merits of the original files.
> It might appear one could still prefer Ive's restored original version for the
> single occurrences showed. At least its contrast curve could stay the reference.
> 
Yes, as reference certainly, in combination with what I can find on the 
internet I want to stress.

> But as you geologist said, its bigger scale is misleading. For having struggled
> to do something that stays consistent at various scales, I know that you're
> tackling something more demanding but keep hope, do not give up, try to reach an
> as pleasing color curve. Theoretically, it could even get better than the
> original as the new pov version can produce more nuances. I believe at this
> stage showing both the current one and a much closer up framed render would do
> it justice.
> 
indeed.

> *Saturation of the colors should be slighly more and brightness slightly less,
> but don't look at the picture straight out of the renderer, only after applying
> it the gamma above 1.8 and below 2.5. if your rendered frame display gamma
> doesn't do that. I would try playing either in very small amounts with the
> brilliance keyword. or switch to another shading model if they did get
> implemented since Uberpov? if they haven't the #brilliance shift kind of does
> that "shading model translation" (OrenNayar Blinn would have sigmas for various
> rocks well referenced I think).
> 
Yes, more tweaking needed here indeed, saturation and brightness. 
Display_Gamma is set as sRGB since the days of Clipka at least.

> *The specularity looks somewhat wrong sorry to be that vague: did you use
> specular or phong, because what I more clearly meant was that it looks like
> phong : too blurry.
> 
I don't/never use phong, only specular
> 
> Now it's just all bonus, though, the material feels really official includable
> level already!
> 
Thanks! :-)

> Thanks for your work !
> 
I am getting adicted! ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 21-4-2021 om 15:15 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 21-4-2021 om 13:56 schreef jr:
>>> note to Thomas: _please_ correct the spelling to 'mahogany'.
>>
>> I have been wondering about the spelling. After (again) assessing the
>> occurrence of both spellings on the net, it seems indeed that "Mahogany"
>> is the correct one.
> 
> perhaps also to do with accessing the net from the Netherlands vs the UK?  both
> Google and Wiktionary don't think much -- anything! -- of 'mohogany'.
> 
True here too but there are a couple from "commercial" sites in the US.

> 
>> I followed Daniel Mecklenburg's original (wrong) spelling from the start.
>>
>> Additional Names: Dakota Mahagony,Dakota Mahogany,Mahogany
>> Dakota,Mahogany Dakota America,Rushmore Mahogany,Select Mahogany,Sunset
>> Mahogany,Brown Velvet Mahogany,Whetstone Mahogany,American
>> Bouquet,Carnelian Granite    :-)
>>
>> see: {...}
>>
>> I shall correct but I wonder if I am not going to name it: "Dakota Red
>> Granite" instead.
> 
> do "mahogany granites" occur in places other than the Dakotas? if yes, I'd put
> the "Dakota Red" plus latin nomenclature with the by-variant "background" info.
>
Probably not. I suppose it is a local variation name. Remember: these 
are commercial names, not scientific.

> (and thanks for making change to spelling)
> 
Always happy to serve, sir. ;-)


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 21-4-2021 om 15:12 schreef ingo:
> in news:web.608012f064981f5c79819d986cde94f1@news.povray.org jr wrote:
> 
>> "fake granite
> 
> 've been looking at this thread with half an eye only. I worked in the
> graphics industry for quite a while and one of my jobs was pattern
> designer & colorist. The one thing I learnt,
> 
> People want what they think looks like the real thing. Not what the real
> thing actually looks like.
>
How true!

> I have a colorised concrete floor in my house. The top layer has been
> ground off into the "grain". "What a nice marble floor" ... it looks more
> like a coarse granite ... it is closest to man made terazzo .... But still
> "a nice marble floor" ;)
> 
> https://ingoogni.nl/stuff/IMG_2021_04_21_0277_s.jpg with a nice line of
> light.
> 
> Ingo
> 

Oh lol! almost but not quite a granite. Nice terrazzo certainly. I have 
tiles on my floor with a "rock" print. They are all identical but 
complex enough to fool the eyes at first glance. However, how fake can 
you get!? I didn't choose them... ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 21-4-2021 om 15:47 schreef Mr:
> > Getting closer indeed! Now it has much more scale variations. Credit
> > (unwillingly :-P) deserved by Ive for showing us merits of the original files.
> > It might appear one could still prefer Ive's restored original version for the
> > single occurrences showed. At least its contrast curve could stay the reference.
> >
> Yes, as reference certainly, in combination with what I can find on the
> internet I want to stress.
>
> > But as you geologist said, its bigger scale is misleading. For having struggled
> > to do something that stays consistent at various scales, I know that you're
> > tackling something more demanding but keep hope, do not give up, try to reach an
> > as pleasing color curve. Theoretically, it could even get better than the
> > original as the new pov version can produce more nuances. I believe at this
> > stage showing both the current one and a much closer up framed render would do
> > it justice.
> >
> indeed.
>
> > *Saturation of the colors should be slighly more and brightness slightly less,
> > but don't look at the picture straight out of the renderer, only after applying
> > it the gamma above 1.8 and below 2.5. if your rendered frame display gamma
> > doesn't do that. I would try playing either in very small amounts with the
> > brilliance keyword. or switch to another shading model if they did get
> > implemented since Uberpov? if they haven't the #brilliance shift kind of does
> > that "shading model translation" (OrenNayar Blinn would have sigmas for various
> > rocks well referenced I think).
> >
> Yes, more tweaking needed here indeed, saturation and brightness.
> Display_Gamma is set as sRGB since the days of Clipka at least.
>
> > *The specularity looks somewhat wrong sorry to be that vague: did you use
> > specular or phong, because what I more clearly meant was that it looks like
> > phong : too blurry.
> >
> I don't/never use phong, only specular
> >
> > Now it's just all bonus, though, the material feels really official includable
> > level already!
> >
> Thanks! :-)
>
> > Thanks for your work !
> >
> I am getting adicted! ;-)
>
> --
> Thomas

Also, sorry , but ignore the part of my comment about brightness or saturation,
I am not sure of any such thing until I see more close ups or render them myself
if I get some time. However, to push further on the scale variation, I thing the
biggest salmon colour splotches are still  too frequent when looking at
reference photo don't they occur slightly less frequently / more distant from
each other?  ... but your eye should be more expert about this.

Post a reply to this message

Op 21/04/2021 om 10:48 schreef Paolo Gibellini:
> Thomas de Groot wrote on 19/04/2021 13:56:
>> Op 19-4-2021 om 11:57 schreef Paolo Gibellini:
>>> Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
>>>> [snip]>
>>>
>>> Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing 
>>> ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
>>> See the picture as reference.
>>>
>>> Paolo
>>
>> A challenge? It would be a very interesting to do indeed. Not 
>> immediately as I want to complete the granites first, but it is /an 
>> offer I cannot refuse/ ;-)
>>
> 
> Honestly I used the word challenge in a generic way, but a real 
> challenge could be interesting, it would add more content to the inc files.
> 
> When you are done...
> 

I did understand it in a generic way indeed. It is a challenging task to 
do.

This particular marble would have to be tackled with an 
*object_pattern*. Never used them seriously, but I guess it would be the 
way to go. Want to try? :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 21/04/2021 om 17:06 schreef Mr:

> Also, sorry , but ignore the part of my comment about brightness or saturation,
> I am not sure of any such thing until I see more close ups or render them myself
> if I get some time. However, to push further on the scale variation, I thing the
> biggest salmon colour splotches are still  too frequent when looking at
> reference photo don't they occur slightly less frequently / more distant from
> each other?  ... but your eye should be more expert about this.
> 
Anyway, your comments on brightness and saturation are well taken. They 
need a bit of extra attention imo, even if correct. The whole use of 
finish is still under my scrutiny.

Scale variation: yes, you are absolutely right and I want to get a 
better control on the distribution of the different grains. What in 
particular is missing in this "matrix" is quartz, besides the 
salmon-coloured feldspars. Literature gives the (varying) proportions of 
each and can serve as a guide.

This is going to be the next step now for me with this test granite. As 
soon as I get something working I shall post the code for everybody to 
test and shoot on (if they feel the urge).

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 21-4-2021 om 15:15 schreef jr:
> > ...
> > Google and Wiktionary don't think much -- anything! -- of 'mohogany'.
> >
> True here too but there are a couple from "commercial" sites in the US.
> ...
> Probably not. I suppose it is a local variation name. Remember: these
> are commercial names, not scientific.

had not thought of/forgotten they're trade names.  will try + remember.


> > (and thanks for making change to spelling)
> >
> Always happy to serve, sir. ;-)

</grin>


> I am getting adicted! ;-)

</more-grinning>


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 21-4-2021 om 15:47 schreef Mr:
> Getting closer indeed! Now it has much more scale variations. Credit
> (unwillingly :-P) deserved by Ive for showing us merits of the original files.
> It might appear one could still prefer Ive's restored original version for the
> single occurrences showed. At least its contrast curve could stay the reference.
> 
The sad thing is that Ive made a very valuable contribution to this 
project with his NAP.pov file. As soon as I got the time to browse 
through it, I could see that. But before I could even properly comment, 
he got impatient, pissed-off, uninterested in the first place with 
POV-Ray, I don't even know what or why, and just dropped out. I can say 
at this stage that his file is the perfect vehicle to re-render the 
original granites by Daniel Mecklenburg. With some tweaking (adding an 
extra scale for instance) they even begin to look like granites. ;-)

There are parameters Ive used in NAP.pov of which I had not even be 
aware of, so I learned a number of new things about POV-Ray, and that 
progress is vital/fundamental.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

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

> This particular marble would have to be tackled with an
> *object_pattern*. Never used them seriously, but I guess it would be the
> way to go. Want to try? :-)

Or could cheat a bit and use an image map in a function.

Post a reply to this message

Op 22-4-2021 om 12:19 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> 
>> This particular marble would have to be tackled with an
>> *object_pattern*. Never used them seriously, but I guess it would be the
>> way to go. Want to try? :-)
> 
> Or could cheat a bit and use an image map in a function.
> 
> 
Could, but not sure if it that would work. I thought about an 
image_pattern alternatively, but my feeling is that an object_pattern is 
the way to go.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message