I found this while surface for POV Stuff...
http://www.3dark.com/soapbox/random_fuzz/aa_v1a3.html

C.J. - POV User
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy

Post a reply to this message

err...
surfing.
DOH!
C.J. - POV User

C.J. - POV User <hou### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39920f71@news.povray.org...
> I found this while surface for POV Stuff...
> http://www.3dark.com/soapbox/random_fuzz/aa_v1a3.html
>
> C.J. - POV User
> www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I think there's lot of misleading information there.

  "POV-Ray 3.1 is an interface-driven program, but to a certain extent"

  Certainly not. The core povray engine has no user interface at all
(and much less "graphical"). It only reads a file (created by something
completely external to povray) and writes to an image file. That's it.
  Yes, the windows version of povray has some add-ons that may be considered as
interface, but they are not specifically part of POV-Ray 3.1.

  "The rest of the interface is a text-editor whereby you modify the parameters
and tweak the settings on the many, many objects in your scene. This, to a lot
of renderers - especially, the old schoolers - is how it should be done."

  I have never heard any "old schooler" saying this. Most of them just laugh
to povray for the lack of a modeller and they don't like its output quality
either.
  Ok, some povray-users could be regarded as "old schoolers"... :)

  And so on.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I think there's lot of misleading information there.
> 
>   "POV-Ray 3.1 is an interface-driven program, but to a certain extent"
> 
>   Certainly not. The core povray engine has no user interface at all

A language is an interface !  I'm currently using my english-interface,
so I can understand what you say, and (hopefully) you can understand
what I say.  If we were both using our "native" interfaces, that would 
be difficult !!

The POV-Ray language is an interface between what you want it to do,
and the core engine.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
: A language is an interface !  I'm currently using my english-interface,
: so I can understand what you say, and (hopefully) you can understand
: what I say.  If we were both using our "native" interfaces, that would 
: be difficult !!

: The POV-Ray language is an interface between what you want it to do,
: and the core engine.

  I think that a User Interface is more like a realtime-app, where the
program waits for you to do something and then reacts to what you did.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

The App does not have to be "real-time", that is just a type of interface.
POV uses a text based interface with a graphical wrapper that performs the
more common commands.
But that was not what I thought the article was able. It struck me, that the
author gave two "thumbs up" for POV even when compared to the commercial
packages (like 3dMax). Although, the parser is slow in POV compared to Max,
ect. the output is (to the experienced) on par. He even stated that POV
outputs textures better than Max, unless you buy some expensive add-on and
spend a lot of time tweaking it.
All in all, this I thought was a glowing report for a program that is
Freeware and is a testament to the POV Teams effort.

Regards,
C.J. - POV User
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy


Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:399289f2@news.povray.org...
> Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
> : A language is an interface !  I'm currently using my english-interface,
> : so I can understand what you say, and (hopefully) you can understand
> : what I say.  If we were both using our "native" interfaces, that would
> : be difficult !!
>
> : The POV-Ray language is an interface between what you want it to do,
> : and the core engine.
>
>   I think that a User Interface is more like a realtime-app, where the
> program waits for you to do something and then reacts to what you did.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

>The POV-Ray language is an interface between what you want it to do,
>and the core engine.

then the 3ds fileformat is an interface too :)
although binary, it describes the scene,
and with *enough* skill, you should be able to
edit that directly :)

Post a reply to this message

> outputs textures better than Max, unless you buy some expensive add-on and
> spend a lot of time tweaking it.

I'd be willing to debate that one ;)

Mmmm... standard textures... interactive procedural displacement mapping
direct from the materials editor... :P~~~

But I still love POV-Ray :)  *sigh*  It taught me all the kewl stuff.

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

"C.J. - POV User" wrote:
> 
> err...
> surfing.
> DOH!
> C.J. - POV User
> 
> C.J. - POV User <hou### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
> news:39920f71@news.povray.org...
> > I found this while surface for POV Stuff...
> > http://www.3dark.com/soapbox/random_fuzz/aa_v1a3.html
> >
> > C.J. - POV User
> > www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy
> >
> >

You know you've been raytracing too long when...

Post a reply to this message

Though there may be some "inaccurate" information in the article.  I think it's
pretty good press for a great program.  It was nice seeing a "pro-POV" article
outside of these newgroups.

rik

Warp wrote:

>   I think there's lot of misleading information there.
>
>   "POV-Ray 3.1 is an interface-driven program, but to a certain extent"
>
>   Certainly not. The core povray engine has no user interface at all
> (and much less "graphical"). It only reads a file (created by something
> completely external to povray) and writes to an image file. That's it.
>   Yes, the windows version of povray has some add-ons that may be considered as
> interface, but they are not specifically part of POV-Ray 3.1.
>
>   "The rest of the interface is a text-editor whereby you modify the parameters
> and tweak the settings on the many, many objects in your scene. This, to a lot
> of renderers - especially, the old schoolers - is how it should be done."
>
>   I have never heard any "old schooler" saying this. Most of them just laugh
> to povray for the lack of a modeller and they don't like its output quality
> either.
>   Ok, some povray-users could be regarded as "old schoolers"... :)
>
>   And so on.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

from the article....
"...A note to NewTek - I still haven't been able to produce metal that
looked as much like metal as in POV-Ray. TrueSpace came close, but not
really, and 3DMax2 does a decent job."

His words not mine. Although I'd love to see your argument with him. Not
that I know much about the other Apps, I just like a good fight.
:)

Regards,
C.J. - POV User
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy

Lance Birch <-> wrote in message news:3992b682@news.povray.org...
> > outputs textures better than Max, unless you buy some expensive add-on
and
> > spend a lot of time tweaking it.
>
> I'd be willing to debate that one ;)
>
> Mmmm... standard textures... interactive procedural displacement mapping
> direct from the materials editor... :P~~~
>
> But I still love POV-Ray :)  *sigh*  It taught me all the kewl stuff.
>
> --
> Lance
>
> The Zone
> http://come.to/the.zone
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Oh I'd really put a good fight on too :)  hehehe

BTW, does anyone want me to make some test renderings in MAX so you can see
how it renders different things?

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

I would, as long as your can render the "same" scene in POV to comare it
with. If you can....


C.J. - POV User
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy

Lance Birch <-> wrote in message news:39932b1b@news.povray.org...
> Oh I'd really put a good fight on too :)  hehehe
>
> BTW, does anyone want me to make some test renderings in MAX so you can
see
> how it renders different things?
>
> --
> Lance
>
> The Zone
> http://come.to/the.zone
>
>

Post a reply to this message

C.J. - POV User wrote:
> I would, as long as your can render the "same" scene in POV to comare it
> with. If you can....

Hmm, I don't think I can... I could get the object placement the same but I
wouldn't know how to make the textures the same... or do the displacement
mapping (from hanging around in here it sounds like MegaPOV could do the
job, but it's been a fair while since I've coded in POV-Ray and I've never
used MegaPOV)

Here's an image I just made though, it shows a few features of the
texturing, like using self-illumination maps, displacement maps, and
raytracing for the reflections.  All the textures were made in about 5
minutes so they're nothing special artistically.  It took 1 minute 22
seconds to render, but I had Winamp running (it probably wouldn't make too
much difference, MAX seems to let other programs have priority unless you
have multiple processors).

There are two lights in the scene, one is used to exclusively light the
teapot in the background (just for fun - I love exclusive lighting! ;)

Here's a PNG of it:

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/lancebirch/magma.png

(p.s. because that's on XOOM you might have to put the URL into your browser
for it to work)

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
> : A language is an interface !  I'm currently using my english-interface,
> : so I can understand what you say, and (hopefully) you can understand
> : what I say.  If we were both using our "native" interfaces, that would
> : be difficult !!
> 
> : The POV-Ray language is an interface between what you want it to do,
> : and the core engine.
> 
>   I think that a User Interface is more like a realtime-app, where the
> program waits for you to do something and then reacts to what you did.

Whereas POV-Ray is the exact opposite.  You wait for it to do something
and then react to what it did.

-- 
Francois Labreque | Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a snooze
     flabreq      | button on a cat who wants breakfast.
        @         |      - Unattributed quote from rec.humor.funny
  attglobal.net

Post a reply to this message

Interesting meaty blob.
In truth I don't see why the scene could not be done in POV though. The
object placement should be easy. The Meat Ball could be done a a blob object
with texture, normal, and finish ( As an example of some Nice POV texturing
check out the "sky" in this image.
http://www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy/gallery/gallery04.htm , I can see the
meat ball being done like this. the teapot I could either model in POV or
import from many resources and slap a standard metal finish on it.

If you want, maybe I could redo the scene in POV. I would need the coords of
the camera, objects (and sizes) and lights? But I think this can be done. It
would not be exact but close.

C.J. - POV User
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy

Lance Birch <-> wrote in message news:39935c0d@news.povray.org...
> C.J. - POV User wrote:
> > I would, as long as your can render the "same" scene in POV to comare it
> > with. If you can....
>
> Hmm, I don't think I can... I could get the object placement the same but
I
> wouldn't know how to make the textures the same... or do the displacement
> mapping (from hanging around in here it sounds like MegaPOV could do the
> job, but it's been a fair while since I've coded in POV-Ray and I've never
> used MegaPOV)
>
> Here's an image I just made though, it shows a few features of the
> texturing, like using self-illumination maps, displacement maps, and
> raytracing for the reflections.  All the textures were made in about 5
> minutes so they're nothing special artistically.  It took 1 minute 22
> seconds to render, but I had Winamp running (it probably wouldn't make too
> much difference, MAX seems to let other programs have priority unless you
> have multiple processors).
>
> There are two lights in the scene, one is used to exclusively light the
> teapot in the background (just for fun - I love exclusive lighting! ;)
>
> Here's a PNG of it:
>
> http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/lancebirch/magma.png
>
> (p.s. because that's on XOOM you might have to put the URL into your
browser
> for it to work)
>
> --
> Lance
>
> The Zone
> http://come.to/the.zone
>
>

Post a reply to this message

My point was that the renderer is capable of a lot more than it's given
credit for.

More I was aiming at showing that despite what seems to be common opinion
around here, MAX has a wonderful renderer that produces great quality images
and animations.

As for the middle ball, the effect isn't a blob and couldn't be created (at
least not quickly) with one.  It's a procedural displacement map applied to
a sphere (which I've then used a derivative of as the diffuse color map, the
self-illumination map and then again on the shininess strength map so the
dark parts aren't as shiny as the red/orange parts).

Also what I was trying to show was that MAX has a very powerful material
editor, one capable of producing a huge range of different texture types *by
default*.  There's no need to add any plugins.  I guess if you really wanted
to, you can write you're own plugins too, with some knowledge of C++ (MAX
Professional comes with a huge library and reference manual on creating
plugins for all types of things in MAX, from objects, to materials, to
renderers, new lighting models, basically anything).

Anyway, if you want you can redo the scene, I'll get some co-ords for the
spheres and lights.  The camera has a fair few properties that you'll have
to translate into POV-Ray's camera model (for example in MAX you give the
field of view as an angle or mm measurement, I'm not sure how this will
translate to POV-Ray exactly).

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> Mmmm... standard textures...

POV has a load of those too, you know :)

> interactive procedural displacement mapping
> direct from the materials editor... :P~~~
> 

Thats a modeller-specific feature.

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

> > Mmmm... standard textures...
>
> POV has a load of those too, you know :)

I was actually talking about surface lighting models... which it has a fair
few of for specific materials (metal, anisotropic, blinn, flat, phong,
nayler-blinn etc).

Mmm... but I love POV-Ray's area lights :P~~~  I had lots of phun with those
(even though they took ages to render on my old 486 ;)

> Thats a modeller-specific feature.

I don't think so, it's part of the material definition that a material can
displace geometry, it really isn't anything to do with the modeller (except
the interactive viewing when you're creating it).

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> I was actually talking about surface lighting models... which it has a fair
> few of for specific materials (metal, anisotropic, blinn, flat, phong,
> nayler-blinn etc).
> 

Mmmm... That's yummy, I admit.

> I don't think so, it's part of the material definition that a material can
> displace geometry

The same applies for  MegaPOV, in a way. And it has the advantage that a
mathematical pattern can be used to displacement-map a mathematical object
(isosurface).
I still say displacement-mapping a mesh is a modeller feature, since it simply
transforms the mesh vertices (at least I presume Max does it that way).

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

> I still say displacement-mapping a mesh is a modeller feature, since it
simply
> transforms the mesh vertices (at least I presume Max does it that way).

Well not really... It does in the modeller, but as soon as you render it
does a full adaptive mesh so that the displacement looks perfect, but allows
you to work on it quickly in viewports.  It has several methods that you can
set it to use when it goes to render, like spatial, curve based, and of
course it works on NURBS too.

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> > I don't think so, it's part of the material definition that a material can
> > displace geometry
> 
> The same applies for  MegaPOV, in a way. And it has the advantage that a
> mathematical pattern can be used to displacement-map a mathematical object
> (isosurface).
> I still say displacement-mapping a mesh is a modeller feature, since it simply
> transforms the mesh vertices (at least I presume Max does it that way).
> 
I don't think, that displacement mapping could be considered as
modeller's issue. Yes, it transforms vertices, but nobody will create
such dense mesh and transform all those vertices in any modeller to get
displacement. Displacement requires quite dense mesh (Matt Pharr's paper
gives following numbers: without displacement model contained ~1200
triangles, with displacement 1,120,000 triangles, so ~1000 times more)
to get smooth shading for surface and it is not practical to model and
store this mesh. Displacement was created in first place for simulating
such features of surface, which are too tedious to model.

Post a reply to this message

Sorry Lance,
I feel I struck a nerve. I did not intend to down-play the power and
features of Max. It is very clear that Max is very powerful and that is made
more evident by the number of Games, Movies, etc. it is used in.

What I was trying to point out is that POV is a very powerful render in its
own right and I just feel that POV can go toe-to-toe (based solely on my
observation) in a lot of areas that the expensive professional packages
compete. The article I found reinforced that idea too. So, the heart of what
I am curious about is why would someone be motivated to pay a sum of money,
for a App that the same imagery can be done in a freeware program. I guess
it's an issue of "bang for the buck".
I wonder, how many graphic artist and animators use POV on a professional
level. Do the pros use Lightwave, Max, and the others because they are
better at the output? Is it the productivity issue? or are these commercial
packages forced on the artist (thanks for joining our graphics team, we use
productX, go get 'em.)?


My comment about the middle ball, "being a blob", was to indicate how it
could be made in POV.
for a general example
blob {
        threshold .8
        sphere { <0,0,0> .4, 1 translate x*3 }
        sphere { <0,0,0> .4, 1 translate x*3 rotate <0,1,0> }
        sphere { <0,0,0> .4, 1 translate x*3 rotate <0,2,1> }
        etc...
        pigment { Red }
        normal { crackle .5 scale .5 turbulence .5 }
        finish { SilverFinish }
}

... repeating the spheres in the blob and rotating them all over should give
the general chucky effect, the normal will breakup the smooth surface, and
the finish will make the surface features better defined.
Note I would have to play with the type of normal, pigment ( maybe use a
texture instead), threshold and strength values but it should be very close
to the center ball in the Max scene.

I re-read the article and had mis-quoted it. The reference the  plug-in was
for LightWave not Max, sorry.

"The wool seat covers in LightWave can't create realistic looking metal
without expensive plugins or hours of tweaking the specularity/reflectivity
sliders."

Regards,
C.J. - POV User

Lance Birch <-> wrote in message news:39937d4e@news.povray.org...
> My point was that the renderer is capable of a lot more than it's given
> credit for.
>
> More I was aiming at showing that despite what seems to be common opinion
> around here, MAX has a wonderful renderer that produces great quality
images
> and animations.
>
> As for the middle ball, the effect isn't a blob and couldn't be created
(at
> least not quickly) with one.  It's a procedural displacement map applied
to
> a sphere (which I've then used a derivative of as the diffuse color map,
the
> self-illumination map and then again on the shininess strength map so the
> dark parts aren't as shiny as the red/orange parts).
>
> Also what I was trying to show was that MAX has a very powerful material
> editor, one capable of producing a huge range of different texture types
*by
> default*.  There's no need to add any plugins.  I guess if you really
wanted
> to, you can write you're own plugins too, with some knowledge of C++ (MAX
> Professional comes with a huge library and reference manual on creating
> plugins for all types of things in MAX, from objects, to materials, to
> renderers, new lighting models, basically anything).
>
> Anyway, if you want you can redo the scene, I'll get some co-ords for the
> spheres and lights.  The camera has a fair few properties that you'll have
> to translate into POV-Ray's camera model (for example in MAX you give the
> field of view as an angle or mm measurement, I'm not sure how this will
> translate to POV-Ray exactly).
>
> --
> Lance
>
> The Zone
> http://come.to/the.zone
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Ah, I didn't mean to downplay POV-Ray either.

POV-Ray, as a renderer, is excellent.  It's what I started out on before I
got to MAX and I appreciate its power as a raytracer (in terms of speed as a
raytracer, and considering the number of features that it boasts, it's one
of the best in the world IMO).

> better at the output? Is it the productivity issue? or are these
commercial
> packages forced on the artist (thanks for joining our graphics team, we
use
> productX, go get 'em.)?

> compete. The article I found reinforced that idea too. So, the heart of
what
> I am curious about is why would someone be motivated to pay a sum of
money,
> for a App that the same imagery can be done in a freeware program. I guess
> it's an issue of "bang for the buck".

The main reason that people use MAX is due to its ability as a modeller.  In
MAX it's possible to create something exactly the way you want it to look,
extremely quickly, because it has a wonderful modelling architecture.

POV-Ray, for most professional artists, isn't an option because it takes a
long time to get the right results as there aren't many modellers for it
that are easy and quick enough to use.

A production house might use several different 3D renderers and modellers, I
know of at least two places that have MAX and another renderer, such as Maya
in one place, and Softimage in another.

Usually not about a favourite program, it's what gets the job done quickly.
Time's money.  For example, if you had the choice between Softimage and MAX
to do character animation, you'd take Softimage because its modeller is
designer for it.  Some programs do things better, and MAX is a good
all-round modeller and renderer, and for the price in comparison to
Softimage and Maya it's definitely worth it.

So, in conclusion to all that chattering, it's basically all about
productivity, support, time constraints, and modelling power.

I just get kinda sick of people around the place saying that MAX's output
isn't high quality and it's not that great blah blah blah... because it's
not true.  It's the artist that really matters in the end, and due to the
piracy of MAX, there are a *lot* of bad MAX users that produce really bad
results.  It's no use having a multi-thousand dollar program if the person
using it doesn't know what they're doing.

Gilles Trans is a perfect example of a great artist who really knows what
he's doing.  He can produce far better results with POV-Ray than a lot of
people can with MAX (including me).

> My comment about the middle ball, "being a blob", was to indicate how it
> could be made in POV.

You're right, it would look good and would do a fair job at recreating it.
The kewl thing about MAX's support for displacement maps is that it's part
of the material, so you can animate waves and phases of it etc.

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

OK, Truce!
;)

C.J. - POV User
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy


Lance Birch <-> wrote in message news:39941067@news.povray.org...
> Ah, I didn't mean to downplay POV-Ray either.
>
> POV-Ray, as a renderer, is excellent.  It's what I started out on before I
> got to MAX and I appreciate its power as a raytracer (in terms of speed as
a
> raytracer, and considering the number of features that it boasts, it's one
> of the best in the world IMO).
>
> > better at the output? Is it the productivity issue? or are these
> commercial
> > packages forced on the artist (thanks for joining our graphics team, we
> use
> > productX, go get 'em.)?
>
> > compete. The article I found reinforced that idea too. So, the heart of
> what
> > I am curious about is why would someone be motivated to pay a sum of
> money,
> > for a App that the same imagery can be done in a freeware program. I
guess
> > it's an issue of "bang for the buck".
>
> The main reason that people use MAX is due to its ability as a modeller.
In
> MAX it's possible to create something exactly the way you want it to look,
> extremely quickly, because it has a wonderful modelling architecture.
>
> POV-Ray, for most professional artists, isn't an option because it takes a
> long time to get the right results as there aren't many modellers for it
> that are easy and quick enough to use.
>
> A production house might use several different 3D renderers and modellers,
I
> know of at least two places that have MAX and another renderer, such as
Maya
> in one place, and Softimage in another.
>
> Usually not about a favourite program, it's what gets the job done
quickly.
> Time's money.  For example, if you had the choice between Softimage and
MAX
> to do character animation, you'd take Softimage because its modeller is
> designer for it.  Some programs do things better, and MAX is a good
> all-round modeller and renderer, and for the price in comparison to
> Softimage and Maya it's definitely worth it.
>
> So, in conclusion to all that chattering, it's basically all about
> productivity, support, time constraints, and modelling power.
>
> I just get kinda sick of people around the place saying that MAX's output
> isn't high quality and it's not that great blah blah blah... because it's
> not true.  It's the artist that really matters in the end, and due to the
> piracy of MAX, there are a *lot* of bad MAX users that produce really bad
> results.  It's no use having a multi-thousand dollar program if the person
> using it doesn't know what they're doing.
>
> Gilles Trans is a perfect example of a great artist who really knows what
> he's doing.  He can produce far better results with POV-Ray than a lot of
> people can with MAX (including me).
>
> > My comment about the middle ball, "being a blob", was to indicate how it
> > could be made in POV.
>
> You're right, it would look good and would do a fair job at recreating it.
> The kewl thing about MAX's support for displacement maps is that it's part
> of the material, so you can animate waves and phases of it etc.
>
> --
> Lance
>
> The Zone
> http://come.to/the.zone
>
>

Post a reply to this message