 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/2015 19:04, Anton Sherwood wrote:
> On 2015-5-07 10:16, Anton Sherwood wrote:
>> I'll try this:
>>
>> object {
>> ...
>> rotate -N*y
>> pigment { Tufte }
>> rotate N*y
>> }
>
> No luck.
>
Try changing the direction vector
pigment {
slope {
< 0.500, 0.000, 0.500 > // <- Direction
}
color_map {
[0.000 rgbft <1.000,0.000,0.000,0.000,0.000>]
[0.534 rgbft <0.000,1.000,0.000,0.000,0.000>]
[1.000 rgbft <0.000,0.000,1.000,0.000,0.000>]
}
}
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2015 20:04, Anton Sherwood wrote:
> On 2015-5-07 10:16, Anton Sherwood wrote:
>> I'll try this:
>>
>> object {
>> ...
>> rotate -N*y
>> pigment { Tufte }
>> rotate N*y
>> }
>
> No luck.
>
No surprise: You rotate /the object/ a certain value around the y-axis,
apply the pigment, rotate the object back the same value. You have not
rotated /the pigment/ itself.
However, if the pigment is a slope pattern (along y-axis I suppose) I do
not expect much to happen if you rotate it around the y-axis in any case.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2015-5-07 23:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> No surprise: You rotate /the object/ a certain value around the y-axis,
> apply the pigment, rotate the object back the same value. You have not
> rotated /the pigment/ itself.
Why not? Generally
object { ...
texture { foo }
translate ...
}
is not the same as
object { ...
translate ...
texture { foo }
}
> However, if the pigment is a slope pattern (along y-axis I suppose)
> I do not expect much to happen if you rotate it around the y-axis
> in any case.
Not even if it's built of slopes along, say, some other vector(s)?
--
*\\* Anton Sherwood *\\* www.bendwavy.org
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'tufte.inc.txt' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As there's only one object in the scene, I sidestepped the problem by
rotating the object *and* the camera while letting the pigment stay put.
--
*\\* Anton Sherwood *\\* www.bendwavy.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2015 9:17, Anton Sherwood wrote:
> On 2015-5-07 23:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> No surprise: You rotate /the object/ a certain value around the y-axis,
>> apply the pigment, rotate the object back the same value. You have not
>> rotated /the pigment/ itself.
>
> Why not? Generally
>
> object { ...
> texture { foo }
> translate ...
> }
>
> is not the same as
>
> object { ...
> translate ...
> texture { foo }
> }
>
Hmm yes. I stand corrected for that one :-)
>> However, if the pigment is a slope pattern (along y-axis I suppose)
>> I do not expect much to happen if you rotate it around the y-axis
>> in any case.
>
> Not even if it's built of slopes along, say, some other vector(s)?
>
You are tickling the limits of my knowledge ;-) Slope is a difficult
pattern to use in my experience and I always need a lot of
experimentation to get it right.
I shall need to make a test scene to see what happens. Back soon.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2015 9:19, Anton Sherwood wrote:
> As there's only one object in the scene, I sidestepped the problem by
> rotating the object *and* the camera while letting the pigment stay put.
>
After testing, I can confirm that it is not possible to rotate a slope
pattern, in contrast to other patterns. Even more puzzling, I can
confirm that this is true too when applying the pigment and then
rotating the object: the pigment remains unchanged and does not rotate
with the object.
I do not know if this is a bug or is intentional. If the latest case,
the documentation does not mention it while at the same time indicating
the use of Pigment Modifiers in the example.
I believe we need the voice of an expert now.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/05/2015 08:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> After testing, I can confirm that it is not possible to rotate a slope
> pattern, in contrast to other patterns. Even more puzzling, I can
> confirm that this is true too when applying the pigment and then
> rotating the object: the pigment remains unchanged and does not rotate
> with the object.
>
> I do not know if this is a bug or is intentional. If the latest case,
> the documentation does not mention it while at the same time indicating
> the use of Pigment Modifiers in the example.
>
> I believe we need the voice of an expert now.
>
And I thought that you were the expert. ;-)
My understanding of the slope pattern is that the colour (value) is
dependant on the normal of the point on the object being tested and the
direction vector. So the pigment is tied to the object's shape. To
rotate the patern, rotate the direction vector.
> The slope value at a given point is dependent on the angle between the <Direction>
vector and the normal of the surface at that point. For example:
> - When the surface normal points in the opposite direction of the <Direction> vector
(180 degrees), the slope is 0.0.
> - When the surface normal is perpendicular to the <Direction> vector (90 degrees),
the slope is 0.5.
> - When the surface normal is parallel to the <Direction> vector (0 degrees), the
slope is 1.0.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2015 10:41, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 08:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> After testing, I can confirm that it is not possible to rotate a slope
>> pattern, in contrast to other patterns. Even more puzzling, I can
>> confirm that this is true too when applying the pigment and then
>> rotating the object: the pigment remains unchanged and does not rotate
>> with the object.
>>
>> I do not know if this is a bug or is intentional. If the latest case,
>> the documentation does not mention it while at the same time indicating
>> the use of Pigment Modifiers in the example.
>>
>> I believe we need the voice of an expert now.
>>
>
> And I thought that you were the expert. ;-)
I am sorry to disappoint you ;-)
>
> My understanding of the slope pattern is that the colour (value) is
> dependant on the normal of the point on the object being tested and the
> direction vector. So the pigment is tied to the object's shape. To
> rotate the patern, rotate the direction vector.
>
>> The slope value at a given point is dependent on the angle between the
>> <Direction> vector and the normal of the surface at that point. For
>> example:
>> - When the surface normal points in the opposite direction of the
>> <Direction> vector (180 degrees), the slope is 0.0.
>> - When the surface normal is perpendicular to the <Direction> vector
>> (90 degrees), the slope is 0.5.
>> - When the surface normal is parallel to the <Direction> vector (0
>> degrees), the slope is 1.0.
>
Yes that is my understanding too, up to a point. What mystifies me is
when an object is patterned with slope and then rotated: why is the
pattern not following the rotation of the object? That is not correct to
my understanding.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/05/2015 12:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am sorry to disappoint you ;-)
>
You don't.
>>
>
> Yes that is my understanding too, up to a point. What mystifies me is
> when an object is patterned with slope and then rotated: why is the
> pattern not following the rotation of the object? That is not correct to
> my understanding.
It might have helped if I actually rotated the object.
Puzzling.
Try this instead.
object {
...
rotate N*y
pigment { Tufte }
}
It is hard to see on the SuperEllipsoid I was using.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In summary, after a night pondering the issue, the slope pattern is
applied at world-axis level, regardless of any transformation at
local-axis level of the object. This makes slope different from the
other patterns. This is consistent with the Docs.
To reduce confusion like we have experienced now, I think that the Docs
should be adapted accordingly with an additional entry under *Note*,
explaining why basic transformations of the pattern or the object do not
work as expected.
As a solution to the initial question, I see two possibilities:
- Baking the texture using the mesh camera. See for an excellent
explanation: http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=mesh-camera
Using a proximity pattern technique as was developed e.g. by Sam Benge
or Edouard Poor. This is not exactly the same as a slope pattern but can
come close. Personally, I prefer, and use, Edouard Poor's method. I do
not have the exact location at hand but look for the code in
povray.binaries.scene-files, under author Edouard, date 10-9-2009.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
