I made this simple tutorial. Perhaps it may be useful to someone:

http://warp.povusers.org/povtips/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nice. This is simple advice that, because it's simple, probably doesn't get
said enough.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I made this simple tutorial. Perhaps it may be useful to someone:
>
> http://warp.povusers.org/povtips/
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Great tips, Warp.  I often forget about things like focal blur and get
bogged down in tuning the radiosity, photons, media, etc.  Sometimes simple
tricks like that can do more for a scene than all the fancy number
crunching.

--Lonster

Post a reply to this message

Truly excellent, warp!  I love the simplistic approach, the iterative build
process and the very high quality result.  The planks look really
wonderful, specially using nothing more than normals!

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I made this simple tutorial. Perhaps it may be useful to someone:
>
> http://warp.povusers.org/povtips/
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

I wish you had written this when I started Poving. I picked up a few
pointers as it is. (Well 4 actually :-)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Truly excellent, warp!  I love the simplistic approach, the iterative build
> process and the very high quality result.  The planks look really
> wonderful, specially using nothing more than normals!

  Thanks.

  I think people too often dismiss normal perturbation tricks because they
can't get them look good, and the reason is that they don't know how to
use slope maps.

  I have actually written a small slope map tutorial which will probably
be included in the pov3.7 documentation. Look forward to it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I have actually written a small slope map tutorial which will probably
> be included in the pov3.7 documentation. Look forward to it.

This is excellent news!  slope_maps are tricky to get right indeed!

Post a reply to this message

Hi Warp,

very nice and understandable.

I like the idea of the backlight. And making it
green makes it look as if there is a window where
you would see the woods and so green light
causes the radiosity like effect in a much simpler
way.


As these are 4 independant enhancements, addi-
tional to the path of applying all 4 enhancements
one after another, I'd like to see any of the 16
result images one would get, when applying an
combination  of those 4 tips.

That would be cool to determine which effects
one wants for an own scene.

At least you could show the same path of enhance-
ments with the simple shiny monocolored floor, as
you say it's a matter of taste what to use here.

I have some additional: If objects look far to streched
or skewed you might be too close with the (pinhole)
camera. Choosing a more realisitic camera model or
just putting the camera farer and shortening the left and
right vectors can also make the image look more
realistic.

Changing the position or angles of objects slightly
might  also lead to a better scenery. When rendering a
series of  pictures (eg by using the clock), you might
find the ideal angle for a certain highlight, reflection,
refraction or even photon mapping.

It's good to do this with a simpler setup, perhaps just
after having applied the finish to the objects, as this of
course takes it's time. Don't take too little steps,
start with a rough change of angles, then take the
best result and modify it's angles in smaller steps.
That helps finding the right angle without too much
renderings.

Bye, Olaf.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:457548a9@news.povray.org...
>
>  I think people too often dismiss normal perturbation tricks because they
> can't get them look good, and the reason is that they don't know how to
> use slope maps.
>
>  I have actually written a small slope map tutorial which will probably
> be included in the pov3.7 documentation. Look forward to it.
>

Excellent tutorial, Warp.
With every scene, one should ask oneself the question: "Have I followed 
Warp's 4 tips?", and if no, "Why?"  :-)
Slope_map is indeed tricky. Looking forward to that one!!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:457548a9@news.povray.org...
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Truly excellent, warp!  I love the simplistic approach, the iterative
build
> > process and the very high quality result.  The planks look really
> > wonderful, specially using nothing more than normals!
>
>   Thanks.
>
>   I think people too often dismiss normal perturbation tricks because they
> can't get them look good, and the reason is that they don't know how to
> use slope maps.
>
>   I have actually written a small slope map tutorial which will probably
> be included in the pov3.7 documentation. Look forward to it.
>
> -- 
>                                                           - Warp

I have to say I have never tried slope maps. I look forward to your
tutorial, and might just try some things out before then.

nice 4 tips page too.

Post a reply to this message

Hi Warp!

>   I made this simple tutorial. 

Excellent! I had such a thing in mind for a long time, but you've beaten
me to it -- and to be honest, you've done a better job than I could've
ever done :)


Regards,
Florian

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:45752fd1@news.povray.org...
>  I made this simple tutorial. Perhaps it may be useful to someone:


I have to add my voice here, too, Warp.  Nicely done.  Simple techniques 
that don't get used often enough.

- How

Post a reply to this message

I will add my praise to all of the others.  Very well written, simple tricks
for enhancing the image (great job on the wooden floor texture, BTW).  The
sort of thing that I would have written, had I written it :)

Post a reply to this message

Dan Farmer <dmf### [at] msncom> wrote:
> I will add my praise to all of the others.  Very well written, simple tricks
> for enhancing the image

  Thanks. Getting praise from a celebrity is very flattering.

> (great job on the wooden floor texture, BTW)

  That type of wood texture is actually one of my best developed "tricks"
with POV-Ray's procedural textures I have developed over the years. The
idea is quite simple, yet effective:

- Create a wood-patterned pigment with at least 2 colors (as seen in the
  image, 2 colors is actually often enough, even though using a more
  elaborated color map can increase the visual quality of the texture).
- Apply some turbulence to it.
- Scale it unevenly so that it's very stretched on one direction.

  All the above are actually not my ideas. They have been blatantly copied
from the wood textures included with POV-Ray itself. However, the following
is more original (I'm probably not the *first* person to invent it, but it's
something I didn't see anywhere but developed myself):

- Crate a wood-patterned normal and smooth it out with a slope map.
- Apply the same turbulence and transformations as the pigment so that the
  normal matches perfectly the pigment.
- If you want to create wooden planks, average the above normal definition
  with a gradient-patterned normal which uses a proper slope map.

  Add a nice finish, and that's it: A stunning wooden texture. Simple but
effective.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Thanks. Getting praise from a celebrity is very flattering.

  Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
"to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
might not actually mean what I wanted.

  What I wanted to say was, of course, that it's a great honor.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>   I think people too often dismiss normal perturbation tricks because they
> can't get them look good, and the reason is that they don't know how to
> use slope maps.

I have put much time into trying slope maps, and I just can't get them to
look right. I fully understand the idea, but specifying both the height and
the slope at a certain point takes too much tweaking. For instance, I'll
often start with a low point that has a high slope and then put a higher
point with a lower slope. In my head, I imagine a steep surface turning into
a more gradual one. What I end up getting is a steep line, followed by a
slight downward incline, going back up into a gradual slope. This is because
I made the first slope too steep and the second point too low.

I feel like it would be easier to either specify only the slope or only the
height at each point, and rely on some sort of simple smoothing (like a
spline) to get good values inbetween. Or else some sort of editor would be
useful.

So instead, I generally just use functions to create greyscale "height maps"
that I use as normals.

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

Post a reply to this message

Thanks, Warp!

That actually helps a lot.  A simply-worded tutorial with spectacular
results like that would be nice to see in the documentation of future
POV-Ray releases.

-Randall

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   That type of wood texture is actually one of my best developed "tricks"
> with POV-Ray's procedural textures I have developed over the years. The
> idea is quite simple, yet effective:

What i found most stunning is the fact that it looks just as good as yours
from the Povray Fractal Contest, which is an isosurface actually!
http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/rendering/povfrac/final/0007.html

> - Apply the same turbulence and transformations as the pigment so that the
>   normal matches perfectly the pigment.

yes, matching pigments and normals are something i do frequently.   In fact,
rather than employing manual copy-and-paste, i find myself putting the same
definitions in a macro (function works too!) and calling it in the pigment
or normal, say:

#macro woddy() wood turbulence .1 scale 5*y rotate 5 warp { repeat x*2
offset 2 } #end

pigment { woody() color_map { cm1 } }
normal { woody() slope_map { sm1 } }

> - If you want to create wooden planks, average the above normal definition
>   with a gradient-patterned normal which uses a proper slope map.

hah!  It is indeed a good way to create tiny wooden nods and bumps in the
larger wood texture. :)

Post a reply to this message

Randall Sawyer <sra### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> That actually helps a lot.  A simply-worded tutorial with spectacular
> results like that would be nice to see in the documentation of future
> POV-Ray releases.

  The problem I see is that this is a tutorial on scene design, not on
using POV-Ray per se. In other words, it's a tutorial on how to compose
a scene which looks cool, and the tricks can be used on any renderer,
not just POV-Ray.
  The tutorials in the POV-Ray documentation are (and IMO should be)
about how to use POV-Ray itself and its features. Scene composition
is largely irrelevant in that context.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  The problem I see is that this is a tutorial on scene design, not on
> using POV-Ray per se. In other words, it's a tutorial on how to compose
> a scene which looks cool, and the tricks can be used on any renderer,
> not just POV-Ray.

Not fully. Due to the POV scene files included
it's very strongly POV related.

Then you might also delete sections of the POV
help about eg radiosity. I'd like to see such things
in teh POV documentation and there are already
similar tutorials in it.

Just my 2 cents.

Bye, Olaf.

Post a reply to this message

Olaf Doschke <b2x### [at] strconv14de> wrote:
> Then you might also delete sections of the POV
> help about eg radiosity.

  I don't see why. The radiosity tutorials and reference are very
POV-Ray specific and can't be transferred to other programs.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
> "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
> might not actually mean what I wanted.

For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering" 
isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the 
above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that 
dress flatters you" are all compliments.

And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of 
focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture 
sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it 
just me?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
> > "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
> > might not actually mean what I wanted.
>
> For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering"
> isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the
> above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that
> dress flatters you" are all compliments.
>
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it
> just me?
>

“Right on both accounts.”
Stephen said sooking up to Darren :-)

But calling someone a flatterer isn’t always derogatory.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> But calling someone a flatterer isn’t always derogatory.

Actually, thinking about it, I usually hear it used with husband/wife 
type relationships. If it's derogatory, you'd say they're a "kiss-a$$".

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 06/12/2006 12:26:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
>> "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
>> might not actually mean what I wanted.

> For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering" 
> isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the 
> above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that 
> dress flatters you" are all compliments.

> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of 
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture 
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it 
> just me?

"Flaterer" will be derogatory when acting to get favors or have ulterior, 
unsaid, motive. A cinsere flaterer don't try to extract any advantage, he may 
only be over entusiastic or more extroverted than most.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell 
happened to your bra and panties.

Post a reply to this message

Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 06/12/2006 09:41:
> Olaf Doschke <b2x### [at] strconv14de> wrote:
>> Then you might also delete sections of the POV
>> help about eg radiosity.

>   I don't see why. The radiosity tutorials and reference are very
> POV-Ray specific and can't be transferred to other programs.

It's not because some tip is broarer than POV-Ray that it can't be included in 
the tutorials. If it's a good tip or a usefull one, then including it should be 
encouraged.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Randall Sawyer <sra### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > That actually helps a lot.  A simply-worded tutorial with spectacular
> > results like that would be nice to see in the documentation of future
> > POV-Ray releases.
>
>   The problem I see is that this is a tutorial on scene design, not on
> using POV-Ray per se. In other words, it's a tutorial on how to compose
> a scene which looks cool, and the tricks can be used on any renderer,
> not just POV-Ray.
>   The tutorials in the POV-Ray documentation are (and IMO should be)
> about how to use POV-Ray itself and its features. Scene composition
> is largely irrelevant in that context.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Okay, but I still meant what I said.  I've gone through the tutorials in the
documentation.  I get the colors and textures and finishes kind of alright -
but not exactly what I want.  Sometimes I end up exporting the image to GIMP
to "get it right."

Perhaps tutorials on scene design could be an appendix.  Or, the
documentation could include links to scene design site(s).

Thanks again...

-Randall

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of 
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture 
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it 
> just me?

  As I say in the tutorial, focal blur simulates a photograph taken
with a macro lens, and makes it look like the scene has been photographed
from very close. There are many photographs like that, and it's a nice
effect. I think in this kind of image it's ok, and adds to the depth and
realism.

  Of course in other situations it may be overused.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture
> sometimes.

In this case in particular, it's very realistic:  it depicts small objects
from up-close and real photographs at that distance also show similar focal
blur.  I know, though, some people prefer to see all sharp details in a CG
image rather than it being realistic, specially in stills...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> effect. I think in this kind of image it's ok, and adds to the depth and
> realism.

I'm not arguing that the effect is bad. I'm merely commenting that I 
find most POV images I've seen with focal blur seem to set too high an 
aperture. I find an image where almost everything is out of focus to be 
very distracting. *My* real-life macro camera is cheap, yet has superior 
depth of field when photographing things just an inch or two from the 
lens. A camera that can't get the entire subject of the photograph in 
decent focus is the wrong camera for the photograph. :-)

For example, taking scene8 and setting the aperture to 0.3 instead of 
0.75 gives a picture that I, personally, find much more appealing than 
either no focal blur or "excessive" focal blur. It demonstrates depth 
without making the interesting parts so blurry as to be unrecognisable. 
Of course, it's all subjective.  I just wondered if I was the only 
person who found most examples I've seen of focal blur apertures to be 
too large to be aesthetically appealing.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I just wondered if I was the only
> person who found most examples I've seen of focal blur apertures to be
> too large to be aesthetically appealing.

I guess so.  I personally find focal blur to be very aesthetically appealing
in itself:  it has a plastic beauty...

Post a reply to this message

First of all, call me yet another who liked the totorial Warp :)

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it
> just me?

I've long groaned about photographers who like to use too much depth of
field un-necessarily (in my opinion)to focus attention on the subject.  To
me that only works if you've got tunnel vision or the background is so
separate form the foreground to be abstract.  Eyes naturally move so-as to
not burn in and also to look at different things (unless you're drunk or so
I've heard.)  Personally I like to be able to look at every corner of photos
if I can.  So, in adding realism to a render, a little focal blur goes a
long way.  Just my 2c.

Charles

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4578549c$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>> effect. I think in this kind of image it's ok, and adds to the depth and
>> realism.
>
> I'm not arguing that the effect is bad. I'm merely commenting that I find 
> most POV images I've seen with focal blur seem to set too high an 
> aperture.

I think this has a lot to do with blurry HDRi backgrounds that need focal 
blur to blend in.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos
"The truth is out there"

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4578549c$1@news.povray.org...
> Of course, it's all subjective.  I just wondered if I was the only person 
> who found most examples I've seen of focal blur apertures to be too large 
> to be aesthetically appealing.
>

As a long-time (amateur) photographer, I tend to agree with you. But, as you 
say, it is subjective. I have very rarely used focal blur in POV-Ray, mainly 
because I almost never do close-up scenes, but I feel tempted to do a series 
of try-outs (when I find some time...)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > But calling someone a flatterer isn’t always derogatory.
>
> Actually, thinking about it, I usually hear it used with husband/wife
> type relationships. If it's derogatory, you'd say they're a "kiss-a$$".
>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
>      and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Again yes I agree. It’s sometimes used to say, “I see through your
attentions” and generally with an involuntary laugh. In Lowland Scots we
have a word we would use in similar circumstances, “sook” meaning to suck
up e.g. teachers pet.
For "kiss-a$$" the British term is “ar$e licker”, yours is more polite, to
my ears.
I’ve just remembered “Toad licker” or “toady”, they have similar meanings.


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schreef in bericht
> news:4578549c$1@news.povray.org...
> > Of course, it's all subjective.  I just wondered if I was the only person
> > who found most examples I've seen of focal blur apertures to be too large
> > to be aesthetically appealing.
> >
>
> As a long-time (amateur) photographer, I tend to agree with you. But, as you
> say, it is subjective. I have very rarely used focal blur in POV-Ray, mainly
> because I almost never do close-up scenes, but I feel tempted to do a series
> of try-outs (when I find some time...)
>
> Thomas

Not being critical of Warp’s example as it is good practice to exaggerate to
show a point. I too think that generally when focal blur is used it is often
applied too heavily.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 
web.457933fd53db6158f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> Not being critical of Warp's example as it is good practice to exaggerate 
> to
> show a point. I too think that generally when focal blur is used it is 
> often
> applied too heavily.

Case in point :)
-> http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1760

G.

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapgfr> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> web.457933fd53db6158f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> > Not being critical of Warp's example as it is good practice to exaggerate
> > to
> > show a point. I too think that generally when focal blur is used it is
> > often
> > applied too heavily.
>
> Case in point :)
> -> http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1760
>
> G.

If it’s not Vaseline (Petroleum jelly) on the lens for effect. :-)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapgfr> schreef in bericht 
news:457963cc$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Case in point :)
> -> http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1760
>

Yes indeed!
Strange. I suppose he has some artistic idea in his mind, but for me these 
photographs look just *amateurish*.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapgfr> schreef in bericht
> news:457963cc$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Case in point :)
> > -> http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1760
> >
>
> Yes indeed!
> Strange. I suppose he has some artistic idea in his mind, but for me these
> photographs look just *amateurish*.
>
> Thomas

For *amateurish* read poor or bad.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> a écrit dans le message de 
news: 45797309@news.povray.org...

> Strange. I suppose he has some artistic idea in his mind, but for me these 
> photographs look just *amateurish*.

The tiny web resolution probably doesn't do justice to them. From other art 
sites I see that the prints are almost 2 metres wide, so it's certainly 
quite impressive to see them on a wall. The focal blur makes them look like 
model miniatures, but the zones in focus show the tiny details (people, cars 
etc.).

G.

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapgfr> wrote:
> The focal blur makes them look like
> model miniatures, but the zones in focus show the tiny details (people, cars
> etc.).

Model miniatures ready to be crushed by space invaders or terrorists.  As
the artist, Olivo Barbieri, says:  "After 9/11 the world had become a
little bit blurred because things that seemed impossible happened."

Focal blurring using to great artistic effect indeed, rather than just
selling jeans or soda in hip TV ads...

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapgfr> schreef in bericht 
news:45797e6f@news.povray.org...
>
> The tiny web resolution probably doesn't do justice to them. From other 
> art sites I see that the prints are almost 2 metres wide, so it's 
> certainly quite impressive to see them on a wall. The focal blur makes 
> them look like model miniatures, but the zones in focus show the tiny 
> details (people, cars etc.).
>

Yeah... I see what you mean. OK. Not really my thing, but I understand the 
idea better now. My thick braincase generates a time delay varying between a 
few seconds to a couple of days. I never can tell :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Since everyone is throwing in their two cents: perhaps a seperate 
disturbatable guide would be in order. Perhaps either a wiki of sorts could 
be setup and contribute tutorials along a specific layout (to be 
consistant). If the layout is designed carefully enough it maybe exportable 
to a static html for offline viewing (or PDF/PS for printing). This will 
definantly be someone of a project if taken up (my site don't have the 
monthly bandwidth, and I currently don't have time to make the necessary 
mods to the wiki software I have, at least in a timely manner), but I think 
that it would solve the problem of where such documentation should go and be 
an assit to the POV-Ray community. Just my two cents of course (maybe a 
nickle).

Thanks,
Jonathan
red### [at] redmasqcomIdon't.like.being.spamed

Post a reply to this message