 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks Alain.
You know, I hadn't been messing with media for a long time because I had become
frustrated with it. But back before I quit using it, I think you had told me
the same thing. :)
I'll try this again and post it when I get the chance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I ran some test images, to see what might be going on.
Running your code the first time, POV's messages returned an isosurface
max_gradient of 57(!). So I upped it to 60, just to add a little bit of
"headroom." I also added global{max_trace_level 25}, as the "water box" light
reflections were going way past your default value of 5.
Once that was done, I ran the basic scene with radiosity, but no media or
photons--just to make sure that the isosurface was solid. (I upped the
radiosity brightness to 3.5, to show better detail.) Here's the result--quite
nice, just by itself!! I feel like I'm actually standing there
within the sandstone chasm. You've done a really nice job with
the isosurface, the texture and the lighting.
So far, no problems (as you mentioned.)
I'll post another image, using photons only.
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'newsgroup_rad_scene_1.jpg' (102 KB)
Preview of image 'newsgroup_rad_scene_1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's a render using just photons, no radiosity or media. The rest of the
values are the same as in my previous image post--except that I changed the
reflection of your "water box" to reflection{1.6} to brighten up the sandstone
walls, to see the detail there.
Some strange things are going on!
Those multiple, ragged dark patches *could* be the main reason for the problem
you're having, although I'm not absolutely sure of that. Looks like the photons
aren't hitting certain areas(?). I would try and concentrate on getting the
photon coverage worked out, before pointing the finger at media
or radiosity.
I tried monkeying around with photon spacing, but that didn't help. You might
want to try a different photon scheme, using count rather than spacing.
I'll continue working on this photon problem--it's a nice challenge! I'd like to
see this overall problem *solved*, as I have a similar scene of my own in
the planning stages.
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'newsgroup_rad_scene_2.jpg' (219 KB)
Preview of image 'newsgroup_rad_scene_2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
> ...The rest of the
> values are the same as in my previous image post--except that I changed the
> reflection of your "water box" to reflection{1.6}...
Oops, that's incorrect; I didn't alter the reflection. Instead, as the image
itself says, I changed the terrain isosurface's finish to diffuse 2.5 ambient
0, to brighten up the walls.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/03/22 02:46:
> Here's a render using just photons, no radiosity or media. The rest of the
> values are the same as in my previous image post--except that I changed the
> reflection of your "water box" to reflection{1.6} to brighten up the sandstone
> walls, to see the detail there.
>
> Some strange things are going on!
>
> Those multiple, ragged dark patches *could* be the main reason for the problem
> you're having, although I'm not absolutely sure of that. Looks like the photons
> aren't hitting certain areas(?). I would try and concentrate on getting the
> photon coverage worked out, before pointing the finger at media
> or radiosity.
>
> I tried monkeying around with photon spacing, but that didn't help. You might
> want to try a different photon scheme, using count rather than spacing.
>
> I'll continue working on this photon problem--it's a nice challenge! I'd like to
> see this overall problem *solved*, as I have a similar scene of my own in
> the planning stages.
>
> Ken W.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
The ragged patches seems to be a result of the normal in the rock's texture.
Here's the relevant statement:
normal {crackle turbulence .5 scale <.2,.05,.2>*2 }
The photons react much more to the normals than the radiosity, even with normals on.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to think you can sing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The photons react much more to the normals than the radiosity, even with normals on.
>
>
> --
> Alain
Here's a render with everything on, but no normals on the terrain. I also
increased the max_gradient to 60.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'pillarcanyonc.png' (443 KB)
Preview of image 'pillarcanyonc.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain escribió:
> The documentation text is about the former default of method 1. Greatly
> missleading.
>
Post in povray.documentation.inbuilt about it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> He clearly say the the effect *ONLY* apears when using *BOTH* radiosity AND photons.
> NO effect using only radiosity.
> NO effect using only photons.
Here's one without photons, media, or radiosity. Is there a problem with the
isosurface?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'canyon_none.png' (81 KB)
Preview of image 'canyon_none.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> He clearly say the the effect *ONLY* apears when using *BOTH* radiosity AND photons.
> NO effect using only radiosity.
> NO effect using only photons.
And here's one the same (no photons, no radiosity, no media) with max_gradient
dropped to 10 (as opposed to 60 previously). The maximum gradient reported
was 52.950. The problem is worse with lower max_gradient, but appears to be of
similar form. Shouldn't setting max_gradient higher than the maximum gradient
of the function fix the problem?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'canyon_none2.png' (91 KB)
Preview of image 'canyon_none2.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Sobers" <sob### [at] mindspringcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.47e84046f97379de22cf3300@news.povray.org...
>
> And here's one the same (no photons, no radiosity, no media) with
> max_gradient
> dropped to 10 (as opposed to 60 previously). The maximum gradient
> reported
> was 52.950. The problem is worse with lower max_gradient, but appears to
> be of
> similar form. Shouldn't setting max_gradient higher than the maximum
> gradient
> of the function fix the problem?
>
With max_gradient 100 the artefacts disappear completely. Now, the minimum
max_gradient should be easily found (somewhere between 60 and 100).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
