POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.general : Status of Moray? Server Time
16 Jul 2025 08:06:47 EDT (-0400)
  Status of Moray? (Message 241 to 250 of 466)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Warp
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 11:24:24
Message: <470262a7@news.povray.org>
Shay <Sha### [at] cccc> wrote:
> can be accomplished 
> more easily with outside tools.

  I disagree in two counts:

  1) "Can be accomplished" is not always true. You can't add new rendering
features to POV-Ray with outside tools. It's just impossible.

  2) Even when using a supported rendering technique, "more easily" is
often just not true. Using things like third-party converters, automatic
mesh manipulation programs and such is usually much more cumbersome than
if you could do the exact same thing in POV-Ray itself by simply writing
one #include line and one function call.
  Possible? Yes. More easily? Often not. Not even equally esily.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Ger
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 11:38:36
Message: <470265fc@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:

> Shay <Sha### [at] cccc> wrote:
>> can be accomplished
>> more easily with outside tools.
> 
>   I disagree in two counts:
> 
>   1) "Can be accomplished" is not always true. You can't add new rendering
> features to POV-Ray with outside tools. It's just impossible.

I fully agree that rendering features should be integrated into the POV
render engine. But things like JPG conversion and creating animations have
no business there. It's simply not possible to create a program that "does
it all"

> 
>   2) Even when using a supported rendering technique, "more easily" is
> often just not true. Using things like third-party converters, automatic
> mesh manipulation programs and such is usually much more cumbersome than
> if you could do the exact same thing in POV-Ray itself by simply writing
> one #include line and one function call.
>   Possible? Yes. More easily? Often not. Not even equally esily.
> 

I think you need to make the distinction between "Stuff that acts upon the
render" and "Stuff that acts upon the finished image". The former has to be
inside POV. The latter better stay out.

-- 
Ger


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 11:51:21
Message: <470268f9@news.povray.org>
Ger <No.### [at] thankyou> wrote:
> I think you need to make the distinction between "Stuff that acts upon the
> render" and "Stuff that acts upon the finished image". The former has to be
> inside POV. The latter better stay out.

  I would prefer 1000 times more to do post-processing of the final image
with POV-Ray itself than having to code a separate program for that purpose.
It would simply be way too cumbersome, waste disk space, waste time, and
waste everything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Bruno Cabasson
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 12:10:00
Message: <web.47026c0de7dc7428e8ba46670@news.povray.org>
Today, nothing prevents all the stuff we produce to be orginized more or
less like a mess. I guess it actually is for some of us, and I guarantee
you it is the case for me. The #include approach is too limited and
prevents from modularity, visibility, naming range, etc ..., and the
reusability is somewhat limited and puzzling. A well known and mature
solution for these features is Object Orientedness. Let's make POV4 be
object-oriented. Not too much, but enough to benefit of what can be good
for our purpose.

If we want (still more or less):
    - OO
    - inheritance (prevents useless re-writing of common properties)
    - modularity
    - reusability
    - visibility rules
    - locatability
    - avoid code duplication

And considering that Java was mentionned in the discussion thread as
providing such features, and considering that Java is also a very popular
language, let's try to make POV4 be inspired by Java for these aspects.
Thus, we can talk about 'packages', 'classes', and 'inheritance'. The
following lines can express that we are definig a new 'module' in our
'organisation'.


// Let's make the relationship stuff-we-write/location be bijective,
// and therefore force a minimal organisation: we express how we are
// organised, and where we locate this module in the organisation.
// Like Java, we can say that this code is in the file
// <some root directory>/household/furniture/Stool.pov4
package household.furniture;

// Reuse already defined stuff (can be/is already compiled)
import hormann.IsoWood3;
import pov.math.vector.*;
import pov.Metals;
import decoration.Velvet;
import tools.NiceStuff;

// We define a type of object 'Stool' that inherits main behaviour from
// 'FourLegged' (defined in the same package).
class Stool extends FourLegged
{
    [CLASS_BODY]
}

It is quite direct from Java, but it is not much of a problem at this level:
Java's OK for that according to me. Only this can satisfy the main
structural concerns, whatever we put in the [CLASS_BODY]. And the code is
as compact as POV.

The use of a Stool in a scene could be like:

package scenes.rooms;

// Only a scene is renderable. The name 'RoomByNight' can be used as the
// default name for the output image.
scene RoomByNight
{
    global_settings {...}
    light_source {...}

    // The stool. POV-like syntax, as if it were a primitive object. Can be
    // considered as a POV-like notational shortcut for a constructor.
    Stool
    {
        [stool properties]
    }
}

Until now, POV is C-like syntax and is limited. Why not Java-like
features/syntax for some aspects? For the rest of the language and
features, we can see later what syntax is most appropriate.

My idea here is to find an agreement on this main structural aspect. These
lines are just an example, an effective start point to help thinking. There
are surely pros and contras.

Comments welcome.


Post a reply to this message

From: Ger
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 12:17:21
Message: <47026f10@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:

> 
>   I would prefer 1000 times more to do post-processing of the final image
> with POV-Ray itself than having to code a separate program for that
> purpose. It would simply be way too cumbersome, waste disk space, waste
> time, and waste everything.
> 
I just wonder how you would want to integrate things like
Photoshop/Gimp/Krita etc and MainActor/VisualStudio into POV. I'm not
saying it can't be done but, to me, it would be a tremendous waste of
programmer time. And if you extend this towards the SDL/parser you would
also need to add Wings/Blender/Poseray etc to the frontend.
-- 
Ger


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 12:39:14
Message: <47027431@news.povray.org>
Ger <No.### [at] thankyou> wrote:
> >   I would prefer 1000 times more to do post-processing of the final image
> > with POV-Ray itself than having to code a separate program for that
> > purpose. It would simply be way too cumbersome, waste disk space, waste
> > time, and waste everything.
> > 
> I just wonder how you would want to integrate things like
> Photoshop/Gimp/Krita etc and MainActor/VisualStudio into POV.

  You didn't understand me.

  When POV-Ray renders the image it has tons of additional information
about it besides simply the pixels. It has depth information, normal
information, all kinds of other things. In order to post-process the
image using this information you need to either save it all in files
and then write a program which reads them and does the post-processing,
or you can write a simple script in the future SDL to do the same thing.

  Something like cell-shading or edge finding will probably take a few
lines of SDL code, while with the gimp or photoshop it's *impossible*
to do (at least with the same accuracy).

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Ger
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 13:01:03
Message: <4702794f@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:

> Ger <No.### [at] thankyou> wrote:
>> >   I would prefer 1000 times more to do post-processing of the final
>> >   image
>> > with POV-Ray itself than having to code a separate program for that
>> > purpose. It would simply be way too cumbersome, waste disk space, waste
>> > time, and waste everything.
>> > 
>> I just wonder how you would want to integrate things like
>> Photoshop/Gimp/Krita etc and MainActor/VisualStudio into POV.
> 
>   You didn't understand me.

Not impossible :)

> 
>   When POV-Ray renders the image it has tons of additional information
> about it besides simply the pixels. It has depth information, normal
> information, all kinds of other things. In order to post-process the
> image using this information you need to either save it all in files
> and then write a program which reads them and does the post-processing,
> or you can write a simple script in the future SDL to do the same thing.

Agreed, and this is something that I would call  "Stuff that acts upon the
render" ie. work that is done before the final image is saved to disk.

> 
>   Something like cell-shading or edge finding will probably take a few
> lines of SDL code, while with the gimp or photoshop it's *impossible*
> to do (at least with the same accuracy).
> 
Agreed again, but what I was referring to is the myriad of functions, like
JPG conversion/scaling/rotating and whatnot.
-- 
Ger


Post a reply to this message

From: Shay
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 13:56:24
Message: <47028648$1@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
> Shay <Sha### [at] cccc> wrote:
>> can be accomplished 
>> more easily with outside tools.
> 
>   I disagree in two counts:
> 
> 1) "Can be accomplished" is not always true. You can't add new
> rendering features to POV-Ray with outside tools. It's just
> impossible.

Nice how you clipped "much of what" from my post.

> 
> 2) Even when using a supported rendering technique, "more easily"
> is often just not true. Using things like third-party converters,
> automatic mesh manipulation programs and such is usually much more
> cumbersome than if you could do the exact same thing in POV-Ray
> itself by simply writing one #include line and one function call.
>   Possible? Yes. More easily? Often not. Not even equally esily.

This is all assuming the #include file has been produced. Now, which 
sounds easiest for producing that include file?

A) Code the algorithm into the POV source code.

B) Code the algorithm (ugly hacks and all) into current or slightly 
expanded and debugged SLD.

C) Invent and code a new programming language and then code the 
algorithm in that language.

  -Shay


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 14:14:35
Message: <47028a8b@news.povray.org>
Shay <Sha### [at] cccc> wrote:
> C) Invent and code a new programming language and then code the 
> algorithm in that language.

  Right, because all that is necessary for every single algorithm which
will be ever made for POV-Ray.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: William Tracy
Subject: Re: New SDL for POVRay
Date: 2 Oct 2007 14:49:23
Message: <470292b3$1@news.povray.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> That is already possible, since 3.something. Have you ever seen
> "shell-out commands"? Post_Scene_Command and stuff?

Fair enough.

- --
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when you spend 11 days on a
makefile for a *strange* flavor of Unix, just to 'do a POV benchmark'.
    -- Neil Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHApKzcCmTzQ++ZncRAjF1AJ9WJjfJoIFUq++f0ksx5XIqRzAFlgCfc73w
fljWQUNPHEdR3Adkv4TypwY=
=/i/v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.