|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Upgrading POV-Ray's include files #1: granites.inc --> granites21.inc /=Proof Of Concept
Date: 21 Apr 2021 10:53:37
Message: <60803c71$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Upgrading POV-Ray's include files #1: granites.inc --> granites21.inc /=
Date: 21 Apr 2021 10:58:32
Message: <60803d98$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Upgrading POV-Ray's include files #1: granites.inc --> granites21.inc /=
Date: 21 Apr 2021 11:07:37
Message: <60803fb9$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Upgrading POV-Ray's include files#1:granites.inc-->granites21.inc
Date: 22 Apr 2021 02:14:44
Message: <60811454$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Upgrading POV-Ray's include files #1: granites.inc --> granites21.inc /=
Date: 22 Apr 2021 02:30:48
Message: <60811818$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Upgrading POV-Ray's include files #1: granites.inc --> granites21.inc /=Proof Of Concept
Date: 22 Apr 2021 04:29:07
Message: <608133d3$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Upgrading POV-Ray's include files#1:granites.inc-->granites21.inc
Date: 22 Apr 2021 07:21:22
Message: <60815c32$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |