 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I keep getting warnings that IOR should be specified in interior statements,
but I have yet to see an example of how to do that, and I keep guessing
wrong.
Any pointers?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave VanHorn wrote:
>
> I keep getting warnings that IOR should be specified in interior statements,
> but I have yet to see an example of how to do that, and I keep guessing
> wrong.
>
> Any pointers?
http://www.povray.org/working-docs/id000179.html
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 30 Jun. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmx de> wrote in message
news:3D25B58A.71C425C7@gmx.de...
>
>
> Dave VanHorn wrote:
> >
> > I keep getting warnings that IOR should be specified in interior
statements,
> > but I have yet to see an example of how to do that, and I keep guessing
> > wrong.
> >
> > Any pointers?
>
> http://www.povray.org/working-docs/id000179.html
Thanks.
I didn't see that in the release version docs.
So I took that out of the finish statements, and put it in the object
statements, as shown.
It still seems like a "finish" element to me..
In the old system, I define a part, then I apply a finish that says what
sort of material it is, and wether or not it has any transparency.
Now, I have to define everything about transparency EXCEPT refraction in the
finish, and put the refraction in on the object itself. Very messy for
making objects transparent in one render, and not in the next.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dave VanHorn" <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote in message
news:3d25b92e@news.povray.org...
> Now, I have to define everything about transparency EXCEPT refraction in
the
> finish, and put the refraction in on the object itself. Very messy for
> making objects transparent in one render, and not in the next.
Well, it makes sense to me, as the IOR of a substance in reality is more
related to the INTERIOR of an object than just it's surface. Also, if IOR
was the only thing that could be defined in the interior {} block, then I'd
probably agree with you (that it should go in finish{}, but there's MEDIA
also, so an interior {} block makes sense.
All the best,
Andy Cocker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave VanHorn wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks.
> I didn't see that in the release version docs.
This part has not changed from 3.1. Look for 'Refraction' in the 3.1 docs
and you will find the same text.
>
> So I took that out of the finish statements, and put it in the object
> statements, as shown.
> It still seems like a "finish" element to me..
> In the old system, I define a part, then I apply a finish that says what
> sort of material it is, and wether or not it has any transparency.
>
> Now, I have to define everything about transparency EXCEPT refraction in the
> finish, and put the refraction in on the object itself. Very messy for
> making objects transparent in one render, and not in the next.
The reason is explained in 'Why are Interior and Media Necessary?' just a
few pages before the mentioned chapter:
http://www.povray.org/working-docs/id000176.html
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 30 Jun. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:20:21 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote:
> In the old system, I define a part, then I apply a finish that says what
> sort of material it is...
The ior is element of interior{} and interior{} is part of material{}. Just
material{} statement is optional wrapper (also usefull with declarations).
> Now, I have to define everything about transparency EXCEPT refraction in the
> finish
Are you defining transparency in finish statement ????
> and put the refraction in on the object itself.
You are puting ior as part of interior, not as part of object, for example you
can declare one interior and use it in various materials.
> Very messy for making objects transparent in one render, and not in the next.
I really don't understand how it is connected with rendering of animation.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave VanHorn <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote:
> In the old system, I define a part, then I apply a finish that says what
> sort of material it is, and wether or not it has any transparency.
How do you say in a finish block that the surface is transparent?
I have always thought that it is said in the pigment block.
And IOR is not a property of the surface of the object, but its interior.
Finish defines properties of the surface of the object.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I really don't understand how it is connected with rendering of animation.
Could be because it has nothing to do with animation..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Cocker" <mai### [at] mariner9net> wrote in message
news:3d25baab$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Dave VanHorn" <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote in message
> news:3d25b92e@news.povray.org...
> > Now, I have to define everything about transparency EXCEPT refraction in
> the
> > finish, and put the refraction in on the object itself. Very messy for
> > making objects transparent in one render, and not in the next.
>
> Well, it makes sense to me, as the IOR of a substance in reality is more
> related to the INTERIOR of an object than just it's surface.
I see that.
I'm thinking in terms of defining a part, then specifying what sort of
material it's to be shot in.
So I have textures like:
#declare ABS_Tex = normal { bumps 0.160 scale 0.002 } //Depth, Diameter
#declare Gloss_Tex = normal { bumps 0.080 scale 0.500 } //Even gloss has
some bumpiness
#declare ABS_Gloss_Finish = finish { ambient 0.2
diffuse 0.30
brilliance 1 //0.6767
phong 0.68
phong_size 80
specular 0.2
roughness 0.135
reflection 0.2
}
// Normal bumps disturb the surfaces, and create the effect of
// bumpy surfaces, without the mathmatical complexity of actually modelling
// the surfaces as collections of packed spheres, or anything else.
#declare ABS_Tex = normal { bumps 0.160 scale 0.002 } //Depth, Diameter
#declare Gloss_Tex = normal { bumps 0.080 scale 0.500 } //Even gloss has
some bumpiness
// Finishes are the surface details like reflectance, shine, etc.
#declare ABS_Gloss_Finish = finish { ambient 0.2
diffuse 0.30
brilliance 1 //0.6767
phong 0.68
phong_size 80
specular 0.2
roughness 0.135
reflection 0.2
}
#declare ABS_Finish = finish { ambient 0.2
diffuse 0.30
brilliance 0.6767
phong 0.68
phong_size 80
specular 0.1
roughness 0.001 //135
reflection 0.1
}
#declare Lexan_Finish = finish { ambient 0.15
diffuse 0.250
brilliance 0.8 //6767
phong 0.68
phong_size 80
specular 0.05
roughness 0.135
reflection 0.05
//ior 1.58
}
#declare Crystal_Clear_Gloss_Lexan = texture { pigment { color rgbf <0.95,
0.95, 0.95, 1>}
normal { Gloss_Tex }
finish { Lexan_Finish }
}
As opposed to this, for a non-transparent plastic.
#declare Light_Blue_Gloss_ABS = texture { pigment { color rgb <0.7, 0.7, 1>
* .5}
normal { Gloss_Tex }
finish { ABS_Gloss_Finish }
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:03:48 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote:
> > I really don't understand how it is connected with rendering of animation.
>
> Could be because it has nothing to do with animation..
Then it is even more strange how placement of ior makes difficoulties for you
to control transparency over different renders :-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"W³odzimierz ABX Skiba" <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote in message
news:f0hbiugrvsm559jlam1dvb87k208snipsa@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:03:48 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" <dva### [at] cedarnet>
wrote:
> > > I really don't understand how it is connected with rendering of
animation.
> >
> > Could be because it has nothing to do with animation..
>
> Then it is even more strange how placement of ior makes difficoulties for
you
> to control transparency over different renders :-)
In the final work, I need to run many renders manually turning on parts as I
go, and changing the viewpoint, to produce a sequence of pictures for an
assembly manual.
It's just one more thing to forget while I'm modifying the scene and
objects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:14:21 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote:
> In the final work, I need to run many renders manually turning on parts as I
> go, and changing the viewpoint, to produce a sequence of pictures for an
> assembly manual.
>
> It's just one more thing to forget while I'm modifying the scene and
> objects.
I expected this kind of problem :-) With one switch declared at begining you
can easy control more than one place in script. For example you can vary
ambient of object depending radiosity is on or off. For example:
#declare Use_All = off;
#declare Use_Light = ( off | Use_All );
#declare Use_Radiosity = ( on | Use_All );
#declare Use_Transparency = ( on | Use_All );
global_settings{
#if(Use_Radiosity) radiosity{ } #end
}
box{
-1 1
finish{
#if(Use_Radiosity)
ambient Ambient_For_Radiosity
#else
ambient Ambient_Without_Radiosity
#end
}
pigment{
rgb ( <,,> #if(Use_Light) *2 #end )
#if(Use_Transparency) transmit .5 #end
}
#if(Use_Transparency)
interior{ ior GlassIOR }
#end
}
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I expected this kind of problem :-) With one switch declared at begining
you
> can easy control more than one place in script. For example you can vary
> ambient of object depending radiosity is on or off. For example:
>
> #declare Use_All = off;
> #declare Use_Light = ( off | Use_All );
> #declare Use_Radiosity = ( on | Use_All );
> #declare Use_Transparency = ( on | Use_All );
Interesting! I'll have to put that in.
I've been looking at the 3.5 beta today, and getting some pretty impressive
results.
Some of the things that I noticed are that radiosity amplitude of 40 was not
necessary anymore, values around 1 seem just fine. Also, I have some leds
that are viewed through light pipes (spotlights that "look like" LED
objects) and they could also be turned WAY down from what they were.
I did see some light that appears to have come through my solid case, in
places where there's no holes, but I'm re-rendering now, with the light
values scaled back twoard 1, to see if maybe that was just a math error.
I also am looking at "photons", as this project involves some transparent
and "lensy" plastics.
Looks like a lot more fun to be had with POV :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:17:04 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" <dva### [at] cedarnet> wrote:
> I've been looking at the 3.5 beta today, and getting some pretty impressive
> results.
Today ? So you probably not rendered all sample files yet. Take a look at them
carefully (with help of
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.utilities/25029/ ). And since you have
access to Win you can be interested in http://www.abx.art.pl/pov/bonus (not
updated to current beta release yet, sorry).
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave VanHorn wrote:
> Looks like a lot more fun to be had with POV :)
The fun never stops...
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> #if(Use_Transparency)
> interior{ ior GlassIOR }
> #end
Why is this even necessary? If the object has no transparency, the ior
value will have no effect (fresnel reflection notwithstanding) so it
shouldn't be necessary to turn it on or off (unless it has some effect on
trace time that I'm not aware of).
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 08:55:57 -0400, "TinCanMan" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
> > #if(Use_Transparency)
> > interior{ ior GlassIOR }
> > #end
>
> Why is this even necessary?
To save memory usage ?
Becouse copying objects with unassigned properities could be faster ?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Włodzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> To save memory usage ?
Does a texture take less memory if some of its blocks are not specified?
I haven't looked at the source code, but a texture might be fixed-sized.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8 Jul 2002 09:21:57 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > To save memory usage ?
>
> Does a texture take less memory if some of its blocks are not specified?
Does your question means that we return to opinion that ior should be part of
texturing ? ;-)
> I haven't looked at the source code, but a texture might be fixed-sized.
Unless definion not include variable-sized content. For example (considering
interior):
SCENE : box{ -100 100 }
PEAK MEM : 117.776
SCENE : box{ -100 100 interior{ ior .5 } }
PEAK MEM : 117.776
SCENE : #declare Interior = interior{ ior .5 media{} }
: box{ -100 100 interior{ ior .5 } }
PEAK MEM : 117.776
SCENE : #declare Interior = interior{ ior .5 media{} }
: box{ -100 100 interior{ Interior } }
PEAK MEM : 118.100
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <s73jiugqk9dnvc40tjidg9b2ok7jj4v4a8@4ax.com>,
W?odzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> To save memory usage ?
> Becouse copying objects with unassigned properities could be faster ?
Nope. The interior structure includes ior value whether you specify one
or not. And when copying, everything gets copied, whether or not it is
actually used.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 09:37:59 -0500, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
wrote:
> > To save memory usage ?
> > Becouse copying objects with unassigned properities could be faster ?
>
> Nope. The interior structure includes ior value whether you specify one
> or not. And when copying, everything gets copied, whether or not it is
> actually used.
You are talking about pure interior, but since media is part of it ...
Anyway I started thinking about one case when interior shouldn't be off when
texture is not transparent: media + transparent interior texture.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <c59jiug233sc7jdaba0h2rf336pqdht1el@4ax.com>,
W?odzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> You are talking about pure interior, but since media is part of it ...
Well, yeah, media has parts that are not reserved from the start, things
like density and color maps. The structure keeps a pointer that can be
set to memory allocated for them. For ordinary on/off flags and
float/vector/color values, it isn't be worth it.
> Anyway I started thinking about one case when interior shouldn't be off when
> texture is not transparent: media + transparent interior texture.
Or camera inside the object (possibly due to "inverse").
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
