 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
global_settings {
assumed_gamma 1
radiosity { }
}
camera{
location <5, 9, 11>
up <0, 1, 0>
right <1, 0, 0>
look_at <0, 0, 0>
}
plane{
-y, -20
pigment { rgb 1 }
finish { ambient 1 diffuse 0 }
}
#local f = function(a, b) { min(1, (a*a + b*b) / 100) }
plane{
y, 0
pigment{
function { f(x, z) }
pigment_map{
[0 rgb 0]
[1 rgb 1]
}
}
finish { ambient 0 diffuse 1 }
}
then the pigment is continuous:
texture{
function { f(x, z) }
texture_map{
[0 pigment {rgb 0} finish { ambient 0 diffuse 1 }]
[1 pigment {rgb 1} finish { ambient 0 diffuse 1 }]
}
}
William
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> global_settings {
> assumed_gamma 1
> radiosity { }
> }
>
> camera{
> location <5, 9, 11>
> up <0, 1, 0>
> right <1, 0, 0>
> look_at <0, 0, 0>
> }
>
> plane{
> -y, -20
>
> pigment { rgb 1 }
> finish { ambient 1 diffuse 0 }
> }
>
> #local f = function(a, b) { min(1, (a*a + b*b) / 100) }
>
> plane{
> y, 0
>
> pigment{
> function { f(x, z) }
> pigment_map{
> [0 rgb 0]
> [1 rgb 1]
> }
> }
>
> finish { ambient 0 diffuse 1 }
> }
This has no discontinuities in 3.6.1a for me.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
>> global_settings {
>> assumed_gamma 1
>> radiosity { }
>> }
>>
>> camera{
>> location <5, 9, 11>
>> up <0, 1, 0>
>> right <1, 0, 0>
>> look_at <0, 0, 0>
>> }
>>
>> plane{
>> -y, -20
>>
>> pigment { rgb 1 }
>> finish { ambient 1 diffuse 0 }
>> }
>>
>> #local f = function(a, b) { min(1, (a*a + b*b) / 100) }
>>
>> plane{
>> y, 0
>>
>> pigment{
>> function { f(x, z) }
>> pigment_map{
>> [0 rgb 0]
>> [1 rgb 1]
>> }
>> }
>>
>> finish { ambient 0 diffuse 1 }
>> }
>
> This has no discontinuities in 3.6.1a for me.
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Here is a result from POV-Ray v3.6.1.icl8.win32 rendering of the above
code (1000x1000, no AA), performed on P4 machine:
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5146/bug2bh9.png
William
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, I got the same results with a custom 3.6.0 but it went away when
turning off radiosity and either adding a light source or adding ambience.
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William Peska wrote:
> Slime wrote:
>>> global_settings {
>>> assumed_gamma 1
>>> radiosity { }
>>> }
>>>
>>> camera{
>>> location <5, 9, 11>
>>> up <0, 1, 0>
>>> right <1, 0, 0>
>>> look_at <0, 0, 0>
>>> }
>>>
>>> plane{
>>> -y, -20
>>>
>>> pigment { rgb 1 }
>>> finish { ambient 1 diffuse 0 }
>>> }
>>>
>>> #local f = function(a, b) { min(1, (a*a + b*b) / 100) }
>>>
>>> plane{
>>> y, 0
>>>
>>> pigment{
>>> function { f(x, z) }
>>> pigment_map{
>>> [0 rgb 0]
>>> [1 rgb 1]
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> finish { ambient 0 diffuse 1 }
>>> }
>>
>> This has no discontinuities in 3.6.1a for me.
>>
>> - Slime
>> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
> Here is a result from POV-Ray v3.6.1.icl8.win32 rendering of the above
> code (1000x1000, no AA), performed on P4 machine:
> http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5146/bug2bh9.png
POV-Ray v3.6.1c.icl8.win32 generates the same image on my machine.
William
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
With no assumed_gamma, or with
assumed_gamma 2.2 (which matches
my monitor) the render looks
a bit darker, but has no seams.
With assumed_gamma 1 the effect
is visible.
Gamma correction is non-linear...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Here is a result from POV-Ray v3.6.1.icl8.win32 rendering of the above
> code (1000x1000, no AA), performed on P4 machine:
> http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5146/bug2bh9.png
Ah, my gamma settings didn't show any visible difference in the dark areas.
When I change my gamma settings, I get the same result you do.
If I set adc_bailout 0 in my global_settings, I don't get the problem. I
think it's just that the pre-gamma-corrected color is within the default
adc_bailout of pure black, so it rounds down (as an optimization?). Post
gamma correction, this doesn't look so good.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> With no assumed_gamma, or with
> assumed_gamma 2.2 (which matches
> my monitor) the render looks
> a bit darker, but has no seams.
> With assumed_gamma 1 the effect
> is visible.
>
> Gamma correction is non-linear...
For gamma = 1 it is the linear function f(x) = x.
William
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
