 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-6-2015 19:22, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.06.2015 um 09:28 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> No more sad examples of reflective spheres on chequered planes :-)
>
> It's impressive what a difference it can make to really press for PBR,
> even for something so seemingly trivial as RSoCP; I think especially
> using a fully fresnel-aware model (using "fresnel on" in the entire
> finish block) and blurred reflections (with specular highlights properly
> tuned to match) really adds a level of credibility that you might not
> even have expected to be there.
>
Oh yes! While I jokingly mentioned the RSoCP I fully realised the
implications your rules would have on them.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-6-2015 19:35, clipka wrote:
> Oh, and another one:
>
> - Always, I mean /really/ always and without exception, use
> "assumed_gamma 1.0".
>
> I guess this one is so trivial for me that I entirely forgot to mention it.
>
Oh, we are so used to your typical head bashing that we just grumble
"here we go again" ;-)
But that aside, it can never be mentioned too often.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/06/2015 08:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Oh yes! While I jokingly mentioned the RSoCP I fully realised the
> implications your rules would have on them.
Pictures!
Not real if there is no proof. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-6-2015 10:02, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/06/2015 08:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Oh yes! While I jokingly mentioned the RSoCP I fully realised the
>> implications your rules would have on them.
>
> Pictures!
> Not real if there is no proof. :-)
>
>
We are not allowed RSoCP pictures in this n.g., sir ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/06/2015 12:06, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-6-2015 10:02, Stephen wrote:
>> On 24/06/2015 08:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Oh yes! While I jokingly mentioned the RSoCP I fully realised the
>>> implications your rules would have on them.
>>
>> Pictures!
>> Not real if there is no proof. :-)
>>
>>
> We are not allowed RSoCP pictures in this n.g., sir ;-)
>
I know the rules. But I thought for you they could be bent.
Since uncle Ken moved on. We are sliding into decadence. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 21.06.2015 um 09:44 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> > Can some explain to me what exactly PBR is. In Pov-Ray terms would be
> > nice :)
>
> PBR avoids old-school shading models and rendering algorithms that were
> designed to achieve a particular effect, and instead uses mechanisms
> that were designed to model the underlying physical processes.
>
> POV-Ray has been heavily geared towards PBR in recent times, and UberPOV
> should by now be a viable PBR tool, provided you stick to the following
> rules:
> [...]
Precious information that definitely needs to land in POV-Ray documentation. But
I do like the shortcuts, because they are my only hope for an acceptable render
time, though I have not reached it yet.
Off topic request: please don't suppress POV rainbows! If you can't leave them
alone, please just improve them, as you did with iridescence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-6-2015 13:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/06/2015 12:06, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 24-6-2015 10:02, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2015 08:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> Oh yes! While I jokingly mentioned the RSoCP I fully realised the
>>>> implications your rules would have on them.
>>>
>>> Pictures!
>>> Not real if there is no proof. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> We are not allowed RSoCP pictures in this n.g., sir ;-)
>>
>
> I know the rules. But I thought for you they could be bent.
> Since uncle Ken moved on. We are sliding into decadence. :-)
>
We are living in troubled times. No respect for the simplest rules of
render behaviour. I shall see yet in my old age the heresy of chequered
spheres on reflecting planes I am afraid.
That said, and in keeping with off off-topic, I have trouble with an
emission sphere replacing a Sun light_source in a scene. Whatever the
emission value, the scene remains fairly dark and no shadows seem to be
cast. Using UberPOV. What about this, Christoph?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/06/2015 02:26 PM, Mr wrote:
> Precious information that definitely needs to land in POV-Ray documentation. But
> I do like the shortcuts, because they are my only hope for an acceptable render
> time, though I have not reached it yet.
Apparently there is a name for this: It's called Parkinson's law.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.06.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> That said, and in keeping with off off-topic, I have trouble with an
> emission sphere replacing a Sun light_source in a scene. Whatever the
> emission value, the scene remains fairly dark and no shadows seem to be
> cast. Using UberPOV. What about this, Christoph?
Using an emissive sphere instead of a light_source for the sun - while
being proper PBR - is not a good idea performance-wise: The sun is quite
small in the sky, and most rays will miss it. I suspect that's the
underlying cause for your problem.
If that is the case, and you want to stick with the emissive sphere, then:
- In the radiosity block, use a second parameter to the "count" keyword,
and make it huge; this will be the total number of directions the
radiosity algorithm will choose from, yet for each individual sample it
will only shoot as many of those as specified by the smaller parameter.
- In the radiosity block, increase the primary parameter to the "count"
keyword.
- On the command line, use a higher oversampling confidene ("-ac")
setting; this will force UberPOV to shoot more rays for any given pixel
before it thinks it has seen it all.
The emission setting for the sun should probably be somewhere in the 1e5
range.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.06.2015 um 15:26 schrieb Mr:
> Off topic request: please don't suppress POV rainbows! If you can't leave them
> alone, please just improve them, as you did with iridescence.
That sounds like you're actually using them?
Don't worry - I'll leave them alone, as they do what they were designed
to do (which isn't much), and aren't in the way of anything better.
Iridescence was an entirely different beast: It was utterly broken.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
