Please find attached new versions of golds.inc and metals.inc, as well
as the portfolio scene t_metals.pov with t_metals.ini.

I have named myself in the modification texts, yet the original authors
are not named.  This feels awkward.  Does anyone know who wrote the
originals?

The include files are #versioned at 3.8, but they should work fine with
3.7 if you change the #version.  The portfolio files are unaltered from
3.8.0-beta.2.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'metals.inc.zip' (7 KB)

Op 24-2-2022 om 23:41 schreef Cousin Ricky:
> Please find attached new versions of golds.inc and metals.inc, as well
> as the portfolio scene t_metals.pov with t_metals.ini.
> 
> I have named myself in the modification texts, yet the original authors
> are not named.  This feels awkward.  Does anyone know who wrote the
> originals?
> 
> The include files are #versioned at 3.8, but they should work fine with
> 3.7 if you change the #version.  The portfolio files are unaltered from
> 3.8.0-beta.2.

Thank you!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2/24/22 17:41, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Please find attached new versions of golds.inc and metals.inc, as well
> as the portfolio scene t_metals.pov with t_metals.ini.
> 
> I have named myself in the modification texts, yet the original authors
> are not named.  This feels awkward.  Does anyone know who wrote the
> originals?
> 
> The include files are #versioned at 3.8, but they should work fine with
> 3.7 if you change the #version.  The portfolio files are unaltered from
> 3.8.0-beta.2.

I'd say attribute the work originally to the POV-Team circa 1995/1996.

Not definitive by any means - and before I started to use POV-Ray - but 
there is a file called 'metals.doc' which first shows up in my captured 
source tarballs in v3.0. I don't see it or anything like it in the 
earlier v2.2.

It contains no list of authors(a), but the following text can be found 
at the bottom of the file:

...

Synopsis:
=========
METALS.INC is the result of studying the current metal textures and a
few other good ones that we've collected in the past year and doing our
best at determining what they have in common.  We originally came up 
with nine finishes, but eventually distilled that into the five that you 
see here.  The differences between any two adjacent finishes should be
negligable, yet the differences between any three should be quite
noticeable.  At least, that was our goal.

We also did our best at arriving at a set of five color variations for
each of the metal groups.  This isn't perfect, but we think we came pretty
close.

The finishes range from soft, rough, & dull (the "A" finishes) to hard &
highly polished (the "E" finishes)

...EOF

Bill P.

(a) - Elsewhere, Dan Farmer is listed doing other metal work, but the 
'we' in the 'metals.doc' synopsis I expect equates to POV-Team more or less.

Post a reply to this message

On 2022-02-26 04:53 (-4), William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 2/24/22 17:41, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>> I have named myself in the modification texts, yet the original authors
>> are not named.  This feels awkward.  Does anyone know who wrote the
>> originals?
> 
> I'd say attribute the work originally to the POV-Team circa 1995/1996.

Thanks.  It just occurred to me that these files were not brought under
Creative Commons until POV-Ray 3.7; prior to that, they were under
povlegal.doc.  From that document, it appears that the proper
attribution is to the POV-Ray Team(tm), 1996.

> Not definitive by any means - and before I started to use POV-Ray - but
> there is a file called 'metals.doc' which first shows up in my captured
> source tarballs in v3.0. I don't see it or anything like it in the
> earlier v2.2.

[From metals.doc]>   The differences between any two adjacent finishes
should be
> negligable, yet the differences between any three should be quite
> noticeable.  At least, that was our goal.

I believe that I have maintained this goal with gold.inc, less so with
metals.inc.  With the non-gold metals, there is such a wide breadth
between the dullest finish and the most polished finish that it is
difficult to have a gradual transition between finishes.  But I do not
believe I did any worse than the original authors.

I did see that the original scene files in the texsamps/metals folder
explicitly set assumed_gamma at 2.2, which would seem to argue for sRGB
conversion of the pigment colors.  However, the old finish properties
were such that they exaggerated the luminance of the colors; thus, sRGB
conversion would have made the pigments too dark with my upgrade, which
is evident in my first post to p.b.i.  Therefore, I will leave the
colors as-is.

Post a reply to this message