POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : First image posting Server Time
31 Oct 2024 19:23:57 EDT (-0400)
  First image posting (Message 21 to 30 of 41)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 3 May 2021 07:33:04
Message: <608fdf70$1@news.povray.org>
Op 3-5-2021 om 11:11 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 03/05/2021 om 09:19 schreef jr:
>>> ...
>> I conclude from that [thread], that aa is the ray-tracing answer to mipmapping,
>> and I guess that my initial suggestion of stochastic aa is the correct one.
> 
> taking the 'El Capitan' cliff face as an example, say I want to render two
> images: object near base of, and object some distance from.  then I need to
> choose a scale for the texture(s)?  I think that I (as in "numpty" etc) would
> benefit from having some row/col table, in the documentation and or as array, of
> all parameters involved ("lambda", "octave", such) by scale/suggested distance
> (in POV-units?).  (and perhaps a macro which expands to the texture at the given
> scale/index)  (just thinking aloud :-))
> 
Yes, I guess that is the crucial point here. Otoh, It can also be solved 
by using a much simpler texture for the background, involving the same 
colour_map scaled down, and without all the fancy stuff...

> 
> regards, jr.
> 
> btw, re "graveyards".  had to put on an anorak, even for a cursory read.  :-)
> found out that what I associate with "granite" really is "dolerite".  thanks.
> 
<grin> They are often mixed-up.

-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 3 May 2021 07:34:01
Message: <608fdfa9$1@news.povray.org>
Op 3-5-2021 om 12:34 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> what is (at least for me) is how to chose the right texture
>> for each render or location in the scene (for instance the background of
>> a chequered plane smoothly grading into the foreground).
> 
> I guess you could have a macro generate the texture, and have an AutoScale
> argument.  The distance from the camera to the closest object (user-supplied
> value) could be used to set the scale.  Might need to set a pov unit = real
> world measurement ratio and base everything off that.
> 
> 
Yes something like that is needed anyway.

-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: s day
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 7 May 2021 07:35:00
Message: <web.6095251ef7d27fee8de81c16a8f0b95@news.povray.org>
Some decent modelling, areas I would look at to improve are:

Bricks look too uniform especially on the floor and garden wall.
The join of the garden wall to the house looks odd, particularly on the left
where it is well lit.

Some of the textures need more work, particurarly on the floor, think of
layering some dirt over the top and when doing that try to add dirt in realistic
areas (darker in the corners/nearer the ground etc).
I can't say exactly what it is but the lighting looks odd maybe better radiosity
settings.

The roof looks great and the modelling/texture on the bucket in the well is very
good.

I tend to always add focal blur (not that I have done much with Pov for a
while).

Sean


Post a reply to this message

From: Leroy
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 8 May 2021 13:30:00
Message: <web.6096ca23f7d27fef78c0a28f712fc00@news.povray.org>
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> > Yes, that is certainly true indeed. Try to find the balance.
> > Sometimes/often, stochastic anti-aliasing helps for the grainy distance
> > mess.
>
> Presumably, this is what all this "mip-mapping" business is about.   Has anyone
> ever tried to emulate that process, that we know of?

I have done "mip-mapping" but that was for Quake2 video game graphics, using POV
to make them. I might add badly. The trouble is selecting what to drop and what
to keep. When working on Quake2 the first mip is half the size of the main
texture and the next is half the size of first mip and so on. I guess that if
you wanted to use a mip type texture in POV that the texture would have to be
scaled up and simple-fided for the distance from the camera. A tough feat.

Have Fun!


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris R
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 4 Jun 2021 16:25:00
Message: <web.60ba8b10f7d27fe2a4268365cc1b6e@news.povray.org>
"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
> Some decent modelling, areas I would look at to improve are:
>
> Bricks look too uniform especially on the floor and garden wall.
> The join of the garden wall to the house looks odd, particularly on the left
> where it is well lit.
>
> Some of the textures need more work, particurarly on the floor, think of
> layering some dirt over the top and when doing that try to add dirt in realistic
> areas (darker in the corners/nearer the ground etc).
> I can't say exactly what it is but the lighting looks odd maybe better radiosity
> settings.
>
> The roof looks great and the modelling/texture on the bucket in the well is very
> good.
>
> I tend to always add focal blur (not that I have done much with Pov for a
> while).
>
> Sean

Thanks for the comments!

The garden wall is an isosurface that uses a brick pigment pattern to add the
individual blocks.  I had added turbulence to the brick pattern so the edges of
the blocks are uneven, but the limitation is that all of the blocks are
basically the same size and offset by 1/2.  I could redo it and randomly
generate blocks with a more complicated layout.

At one point I had added a sand layer to the floor of the well/garden area.  I
had tried to add some mossy coloring as well, but I didn't like how green
everything got, so I took it out and didn't go back again.  The blocks for the
floor could have more variability in size and shape as well.

I have only done a little work with radiosity, especially in outdoor scenes, so
I'm not surprised there may be issues.

I think if I were doing a view of this scene that was more zoomed in on one of
the elements I'd be more inclined to invest the time into adding focal blur.  As
an overview shot, if I were using my camera, I'd be using f6 or more, so I
didn't bother.  A closeup of the bucket dripping water would be a good time to
break out the f2.8 or f1.4 lens, though.


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris R
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 23 Jun 2021 14:20:00
Message: <web.60d37acdf7d27fe6fb991d75cc1b6e@news.povray.org>
"Chris R" <car### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> "s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
> > Some decent modelling, areas I would look at to improve are:
> >
> > Bricks look too uniform especially on the floor and garden wall.
> > The join of the garden wall to the house looks odd, particularly on the left
> > where it is well lit.
> >
> > Some of the textures need more work, particurarly on the floor, think of
> > layering some dirt over the top and when doing that try to add dirt in realistic
> > areas (darker in the corners/nearer the ground etc).
> > I can't say exactly what it is but the lighting looks odd maybe better radiosity
> > settings.
> >
> > The roof looks great and the modelling/texture on the bucket in the well is very
> > good.
> >
> > I tend to always add focal blur (not that I have done much with Pov for a
> > while).
> >
> > Sean
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> The garden wall is an isosurface that uses a brick pigment pattern to add the
> individual blocks.  I had added turbulence to the brick pattern so the edges of
> the blocks are uneven, but the limitation is that all of the blocks are
> basically the same size and offset by 1/2.  I could redo it and randomly
> generate blocks with a more complicated layout.
>
> At one point I had added a sand layer to the floor of the well/garden area.  I
> had tried to add some mossy coloring as well, but I didn't like how green
> everything got, so I took it out and didn't go back again.  The blocks for the
> floor could have more variability in size and shape as well.
>
> I have only done a little work with radiosity, especially in outdoor scenes, so
> I'm not surprised there may be issues.
>
> I think if I were doing a view of this scene that was more zoomed in on one of
> the elements I'd be more inclined to invest the time into adding focal blur.  As
> an overview shot, if I were using my camera, I'd be using f6 or more, so I
> didn't bother.  A closeup of the bucket dripping water would be a good time to
> break out the f2.8 or f1.4 lens, though.
I went back and looked at the brick texture I used for the buildings and did
some more work.  The attached image is a closeup of a brick wall as an
isosurface using a brick pigment pattern, applying some noise for the brick face
texture, and added some variability in the depth of the brick so they aren't all
flush with the face of the wall.

Still not completely happy with the look and texture of the mortar, but I think
these bricks are a big improvement on the original without individually creating
each brick.


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'brick_wall_iso_close.png' (1588 KB)

Preview of image 'brick_wall_iso_close.png'
brick_wall_iso_close.png


 

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 24 Jun 2021 10:50:38
Message: <60d49bbe$1@news.povray.org>
Op 23-6-2021 om 20:17 schreef Chris R:

> Still not completely happy with the look and texture of the mortar, but I think
> these bricks are a big improvement on the original without individually creating
> each brick.
> 
Agreed. Still, I have a problem with the vertical 'roughness' of the 
bricks and the horizontal 'roughness' of the mortar. Try to give that 
some turbulence (warp {turbulence <0.01, 0.1, 0.01>} for instance for 
the mortar and warp {turbulence <0.1, 0.01, 0.01>} for the bricks) and 
scale that 'roughness' also up for the bricks. It should not have the 
same apparent size as the mortar.

-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: Alain Martel
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 24 Jun 2021 11:17:10
Message: <60d4a1f6$1@news.povray.org>

> Op 23-6-2021 om 20:17 schreef Chris R:
> 
>> Still not completely happy with the look and texture of the mortar, 
>> but I think
>> these bricks are a big improvement on the original without 
>> individually creating
>> each brick.
>>
> Agreed. Still, I have a problem with the vertical 'roughness' of the 
> bricks and the horizontal 'roughness' of the mortar. Try to give that 
> some turbulence (warp {turbulence <0.01, 0.1, 0.01>} for instance for 
> the mortar and warp {turbulence <0.1, 0.01, 0.01>} for the bricks) and 
> scale that 'roughness' also up for the bricks. It should not have the 
> same apparent size as the mortar.
> 

The vertical roughness of the bricks is very similar to what an actual 

intentionally made like that.


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris R
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 24 Jun 2021 11:35:00
Message: <web.60d4a567f7d27fe6fb991d75cc1b6e@news.povray.org>
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 23-6-2021 om 20:17 schreef Chris R:
>
> > Still not completely happy with the look and texture of the mortar, but I think
> > these bricks are a big improvement on the original without individually creating
> > each brick.
> >
> Agreed. Still, I have a problem with the vertical 'roughness' of the
> bricks and the horizontal 'roughness' of the mortar. Try to give that
> some turbulence (warp {turbulence <0.01, 0.1, 0.01>} for instance for
> the mortar and warp {turbulence <0.1, 0.01, 0.01>} for the bricks) and
> scale that 'roughness' also up for the bricks. It should not have the
> same apparent size as the mortar.
>
> --
> Thomas

Thanks for the suggestions.  I am using the builtin f_wrinkles and f_bumps for
the roughness, but I have my own way of adding turbulence to those.  I made some
much larger changes to the grout roughness to improve that as well.

The rough wood panels on the sides are to give context for the scene I am
developing.

(The green line is an axis I use in my test scenes so I can see where noise
extends beyond the basic shape.)

--
Chris


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris R
Subject: Re: First image posting
Date: 24 Jun 2021 13:20:00
Message: <web.60d4bdf6f7d27fe6fb991d75cc1b6e@news.povray.org>
"Chris R" <car### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > Op 23-6-2021 om 20:17 schreef Chris R:
> >
> > > Still not completely happy with the look and texture of the mortar, but I think
> > > these bricks are a big improvement on the original without individually creating
> > > each brick.
> > >
> > Agreed. Still, I have a problem with the vertical 'roughness' of the
> > bricks and the horizontal 'roughness' of the mortar. Try to give that
> > some turbulence (warp {turbulence <0.01, 0.1, 0.01>} for instance for
> > the mortar and warp {turbulence <0.1, 0.01, 0.01>} for the bricks) and
> > scale that 'roughness' also up for the bricks. It should not have the
> > same apparent size as the mortar.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.  I am using the builtin f_wrinkles and f_bumps for
> the roughness, but I have my own way of adding turbulence to those.  I made some
> much larger changes to the grout roughness to improve that as well.
>
> The rough wood panels on the sides are to give context for the scene I am
> developing.
>
> (The green line is an axis I use in my test scenes so I can see where noise
> extends beyond the basic shape.)
>
> --
> Chris
Sorry, somehow I didn't get the image attached...


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'brick_wall_closeup.png' (1488 KB)

Preview of image 'brick_wall_closeup.png'
brick_wall_closeup.png


 

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.