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

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

> 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.

Windows.

http://www.shelly.de/features.html

Post a reply to this message