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

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

"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

"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

"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'

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

> 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

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

"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'

Op 24/06/2021 om 17:17 schreef Alain Martel:
> 
> The vertical roughness of the bricks is very similar to what an actual 

> intentionally made like that.

I had not been aware of that. In this "bricks country", they are not 
very common apparently, or at least I have never seen them. ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message