 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The right slab is the same as the left, plus subsurface with 'classic' wax SSLT
parameters. I am discovering SSLT, but what happened to the texture?
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ssltslab.png' (54 KB)
Preview of image 'ssltslab.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.02.2011 17:48, schrieb Bruno Cabasson:
> The right slab is the same as the left, plus subsurface with 'classic' wax SSLT
> parameters. I am discovering SSLT, but what happened to the texture?
It is being ignored.
The apparent color of an SSLT-enabled material is solely the result of
the SSLT parameters ("[reduced] scattering coefficient" and "absorption
coefficient").
Future versions of POV-Ray will "reverse engineer" those SSLT parameters
from the pigment and a kind of "translucency parameter".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspace fr> wrote:
> The right slab is the same as the left, plus subsurface with 'classic' wax SSLT
> parameters. I am discovering SSLT, but what happened to the texture?
>
> Bruno
For some reason the current SSLT implemtation negates the pigment (if other than
a solid color). With layered textures you can work around this.
Try using a solid base pigment and SSLT finish in the lowest layer, and then
another texture on top of it, with the pigment's filter=1, and a standard normal
and finish, e.g.:
sphere { 0, 0.5
translate -y*0.5
texture {
pigment { rgb 1 }
finish {
// potato
subsurface { <0.68, 0.70, 0.55>, <0.0024, 0.0090, 0.12> }
}
}
texture {
pigment {
bozo color_map {[0 srgb<1,0,0> filter 1][1 srgb<0,1,0> filter 1] }
scale 0.25
}
normal { agate 0.02 scale 0.125 }
finish { specular 0.25 roughness 0.02 }
}
interior { ior 1.54 }
}
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 19.02.2011 17:48, schrieb Bruno Cabasson:
> > The right slab is the same as the left, plus subsurface with 'classic' wax SSLT
> > parameters. I am discovering SSLT, but what happened to the texture?
>
> It is being ignored.
>
> The apparent color of an SSLT-enabled material is solely the result of
> the SSLT parameters ("[reduced] scattering coefficient" and "absorption
> coefficient").
>
> Future versions of POV-Ray will "reverse engineer" those SSLT parameters
> from the pigment and a kind of "translucency parameter".
Ah, well there's the "for some reason" ;)
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 19.02.2011 17:48, schrieb Bruno Cabasson:
> > > The right slab is the same as the left, plus subsurface with 'classic' wax SSLT
> > > parameters. I am discovering SSLT, but what happened to the texture?
> >
> > It is being ignored.
> >
> > The apparent color of an SSLT-enabled material is solely the result of
> > the SSLT parameters ("[reduced] scattering coefficient" and "absorption
> > coefficient").
> >
> > Future versions of POV-Ray will "reverse engineer" those SSLT parameters
> > from the pigment and a kind of "translucency parameter".
>
> Ah, well there's the "for some reason" ;)
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
Thanks for explanations!! I feel less stupid... Current implementation does good
job (still playing with candles ... and having fun!), congrats, and also well
done Robert for your code.
I also noticed that pigment appears with metallic specularity.
I long for POV's SSLT next episode.
PS: Am turning mad: I see SSLT everywhere now. When I see a vase or go to
toilets, I think 'SSLT'. Shoot me please ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2011 3:49 PM, Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>
> PS: Am turning mad: I see SSLT everywhere now. When I see a vase or go to
> toilets, I think 'SSLT'. Shoot me please ...
>
You're not nuts. Many materials do indeed have a translucency, light
falls just under the surface and scatters. This is why often rendered
images don't look quite right for some materials (especially ceramics,
some plastics, skin and other natural materials) I think this will bring
images even closer to realism than before, and POV-Ray has produced some
incredible images in its time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
