A 2048x2048px render.

StepNoise settings: Start=0.2; End=0.8; Turbulence=0.325; and octaves=2; 
lambda=1; omega=2;

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dakotagrains_testbig.jpg' (685 KB)

Preview of image 'dakotagrains_testbig.jpg'

Op 3-5-2021 om 19:21 schreef Bald Eagle:
> However, all in all, this is very pleasing, and extremely encouraging progress!
> 

As an alternative, I am examining the use of another pattern: crackle solid.

It might be an interesting option...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I think this is a perfect alternative to all the preceding!

The basic pigment_pattern used for the mineral grains as well as for the 
mask controlling the size distribution through the rock, is crackle 
solid. It has the advantage to well-discriminate between the different 
minerals, better than all the previous experiments. I found this out by 
examining a couple of traditional POV-Ray stone textures, more 
especially T_Stone_28.inc, and tweak from there before substituting the 
results here.

I think that the "blurry" aspect that Mr was complaining about, came in 
fact from the size distribution within the mask pattern. It may still 
exist a bit, but I developed a mask with less diffuse transitions.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dakotagrains_testbig3.jpg' (237 KB)

Preview of image 'dakotagrains_testbig3.jpg'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I think this is a perfect alternative to all the preceding!
>
> The basic pigment_pattern used for the mineral grains as well as for the
> mask controlling the size distribution through the rock, is crackle
> solid. It has the advantage to well-discriminate between the different
> minerals, better than all the previous experiments. I found this out by
> examining a couple of traditional POV-Ray stone textures, more
> especially T_Stone_28.inc, and tweak from there before substituting the
> results here.
>
> I think that the "blurry" aspect that Mr was complaining about, came in
> fact from the size distribution within the mask pattern. It may still
> exist a bit, but I developed a mask with less diffuse transitions.
>
> --
> Thomas

This sure looks good. I guess my trouble with this scale and contrast/definition
is that I must be loosing track of what context the current image you show is
made for, and thus probably do not have in mind the proper type of real photo
referenced granite occurence. Once we can play with parameters and get these
various photo references side by side with the renders thing will certainly look
fine and more versatile than if made with just one average reference.

If will it or does it already have configuration presets? something along : 1
Raw outside (worn out with slightly blurry patches) 2 raw inside (same pigment,
neater, and with normal bump) 3 polished: same as before without bump and with
slight mirror reflection?

What troubles me, with the scale is that initial picture I saw ad red flakes
around 1cm size while this frosted has rather 1mm... can the first one still be
made easily?

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I think this is a perfect alternative to all the preceding!
>
> The basic pigment_pattern used for the mineral grains as well as for the
> mask controlling the size distribution through the rock, is crackle
> solid.

That's working out just as nicely.
IIRC, crackle solid has different "metrics" and you can get the adjacent cell
effect like you're showing, but also a sort of pavers-and-mortar effect.

These are all looking good, and it will be really nice if there's a way to mix /
blend some of the different patterns and texture_maps, or even the same pattern
at different scales.

Post a reply to this message

Op 5-5-2021 om 18:12 schreef Mr:
> This sure looks good. I guess my trouble with this scale and contrast/definition
> is that I must be loosing track of what context the current image you show is
> made for, and thus probably do not have in mind the proper type of real photo
> referenced granite occurence. Once we can play with parameters and get these
> various photo references side by side with the renders thing will certainly look
> fine and more versatile than if made with just one average reference.
> 
The whole thing is a mess at the moment of course ;-) I need to assess 
now /how/ and /what/ I want to make controls for. A macro architecture 
of course and enough parameters to play with.

> If will it or does it already have configuration presets? something along : 1
> Raw outside (worn out with slightly blurry patches) 2 raw inside (same pigment,
> neater, and with normal bump) 3 polished: same as before without bump and with
> slight mirror reflection?
> 
No yet totally present as such but to be part of that macro I mentioned. 
I hope to start with the cleaning-up now as I guess I have ironed out 
all the problems at this moment.

> What troubles me, with the scale is that initial picture I saw ad red flakes
> around 1cm size while this frosted has rather 1mm... can the first one still be
> made easily?
> 
No idea to be frank. But I keep it in my mind as one of the options.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 5-5-2021 om 19:50 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> I think this is a perfect alternative to all the preceding!
>>
>> The basic pigment_pattern used for the mineral grains as well as for the
>> mask controlling the size distribution through the rock, is crackle
>> solid.
> 
> That's working out just as nicely.
> IIRC, crackle solid has different "metrics" and you can get the adjacent cell
> effect like you're showing, but also a sort of pavers-and-mortar effect.
> 
I believe so, but I prefer not to use the pavers-and-mortar effect. Less 
natural feeling.

> These are all looking good, and it will be really nice if there's a way to mix /
> blend some of the different patterns and texture_maps, or even the same pattern
> at different scales.
> 
Indeed. Part of the work in progress. ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> ...
> The whole thing is a mess at the moment of course ;-) I need to assess
> now /how/ and /what/ I want to make controls for. A macro architecture
> of course and enough parameters to play with.

with the many posts I read, (sorry) I seem to have lost track of 'why'.  whether
it is "simply" a general modernisation, or bringing the code[*] up-to-date for
3.8 and the shiny, new (SDL) toys.  if the latter, then you're spoilt for
choice.  :-)

[*] much of new, I assume.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

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

> I believe so, but I prefer not to use the pavers-and-mortar effect. Less
> natural feeling.

I only mention it because the opening image of this thread has the natural
examples which have quartz veining that is suggestive of this type of
patterning.

Post a reply to this message

Op 6-5-2021 om 11:08 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> ...
>> The whole thing is a mess at the moment of course ;-) I need to assess
>> now /how/ and /what/ I want to make controls for. A macro architecture
>> of course and enough parameters to play with.
> 
> with the many posts I read, (sorry) I seem to have lost track of 'why'.  whether
> it is "simply" a general modernisation, or bringing the code[*] up-to-date for
> 3.8 and the shiny, new (SDL) toys.  if the latter, then you're spoilt for
> choice.  :-)
> 
> [*] much of new, I assume.
> 
The latter, I am afraid. The whole project has taken a life of is own. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message