I'm here just to bug y'all..

Here is my next question.  Is the ability to blur the reflection only
a Mega Pov feature?

If not, is it done with photons as well in POV 3.5?

Thanks
D

Post a reply to this message

On 10 Oct 2001 16:46:21 -0400, dav### [at] intrepidvoygrcom wrote:
>
>I'm here just to bug y'all..
>
>Here is my next question.  Is the ability to blur the reflection only
>a Mega Pov feature?

yes.

>If not, is it done with photons as well in POV 3.5?

It's not done at all in 3.5.  We're hoping to eventually come up with a
better, more flexible solution and we don't want to try to support the old
limited syntax when we do.

-- 
plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
*z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
"RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker

Post a reply to this message

Damn, I was hopign you wouldn't say that.. I hate having two version of POV
isntalled.. :) 

But thanks anyway.. :) 

D

Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2001 16:46:21 -0400, dav### [at] intrepidvoygrcom wrote:
>>
>>I'm here just to bug y'all..
>>
>>Here is my next question.  Is the ability to blur the reflection only
>>a Mega Pov feature?

> yes.

>>If not, is it done with photons as well in POV 3.5?

> It's not done at all in 3.5.  We're hoping to eventually come up with a
> better, more flexible solution and we don't want to try to support the old
> limited syntax when we do.

> -- 
> plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
> z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
> *z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
> "RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker

Post a reply to this message

"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> It's not done at all in 3.5.  We're hoping to eventually come up with a
> better, more flexible solution and we don't want to try to support the old
> limited syntax when we do.

Something like:
[...]
roughness 0.05
[...]

Oh oh! Reflection blur! And I didn't even ask for it!
?

--
Jonathan.

Post a reply to this message

"roughness" only affects specular highlights, I believe.

- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]

"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bc4baf3@news.povray.org...
>
> "Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> > It's not done at all in 3.5.  We're hoping to eventually come up with a
> > better, more flexible solution and we don't want to try to support the
old
> > limited syntax when we do.
>
> Something like:
> [...]
> roughness 0.05
> [...]
>
> Oh oh! Reflection blur! And I didn't even ask for it!
> ?
>
> --
> Jonathan.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Of course. But I heard somewhere that POV 4.0 will include a more physically
based version of reflection blur. Id est: you define some properties of a
surface and you get blurred reflections just because of those properties.

--
Jonathan.
"Slime" <noo### [at] hotmailcom> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3bc4f11d$1@news.povray.org...
> "roughness" only affects specular highlights, I believe.
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
>
> "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:3bc4baf3@news.povray.org...
> >
> > "Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> > > It's not done at all in 3.5.  We're hoping to eventually come up with
a
> > > better, more flexible solution and we don't want to try to support the
> old
> > > limited syntax when we do.
> >
> > Something like:
> > [...]
> > roughness 0.05
> > [...]
> >
> > Oh oh! Reflection blur! And I didn't even ask for it!
> > ?
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message