 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
