When like to have displacement instead of bump-mapping, you need to use
iso-surfaces.

Having real-micro-poly-displacement like having a normal{}, or a finish{} for
every object would be cool.

BTW.: The PixarRenderman uses real-micro-poly-displacement to generate
motion blur instead of multisampling of objects like MegaPov does. Its extreme
fast and the quality is *much* better. First and foremost, if you compare the
render times of these options, having the same quality.

Holger

Post a reply to this message

"H. Karsten" <h-karsten()web.de> wrote:
> Having real-micro-poly-displacement like having a normal{}, or a finish{}
> for every object would be cool.

That's not possible. "poly-displacement" only works if you have polygons to 
begin with. POV-Ray doesn't use polygons for most of its objects.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
...
> That's not possible. "poly-displacement" only works if you have polygons to
> begin with. POV-Ray doesn't use polygons for most of its objects.

I know, that the PixarRenderman can real displace also objects, that are
defined, using the RIB-Language, such as spheres or boxes.

A micropolygon is that part of an surface, that appears in the very pixel of the
image. (Every pixel builds a polygon) I don't know, if its based on normal
polygons. In the Renderman, you can displace *everything* except media. And a
lot of object are definitely _not_ polygon-based, like NURBS or patches. The
surface appears of other formulas (see posting before) +the
displacement-algorithm.

Maybe, its just the name of 'micropolygon' the may confuse.

Holger

Post a reply to this message

H. Karsten <h-karsten()web.de> wrote:
> Having real-micro-poly-displacement like having a normal{}, or a finish{} for
> every object would be cool.

  You are free to offer an implementation of this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
...
>
> You are free to offer an implementation of this.
>
> --
> - Warp

Until now, I'm not able to compile PovRay without an error message ;)

OK, one time it works. My C skill is on the level, making shader in PovMan...

Post a reply to this message

H. Karsten schrieb:

> Until now, I'm not able to compile PovRay without an error message ;)
> 
> OK, one time it works. My C skill is on the level, making shader in PovMan...

C++ skills would be closer to the mark ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
...
> C++ skills would be closer to the mark ;-)

Well then it seams, that I'm ++ behind ;)

Post a reply to this message

Actually, everything in Renderman is a polygon.  Even if you use curve 
based objects like spheres, they first get tessellated as polygons 
before being rendered.

I believe Pixar uses a dynamic tessellation which yields polygons 
roughly half the size of individual pixels, so the end quality is still 
quite good, but that doesn't change the fact that the way POV-Ray works 
is very, very different.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Actually, everything in Renderman is a polygon.  Even if you use curve 
> based objects like spheres, they first get tessellated as polygons 
> before being rendered.
> 
> I believe Pixar uses a dynamic tessellation which yields polygons 
> roughly half the size of individual pixels, so the end quality is still 
> quite good, but that doesn't change the fact that the way POV-Ray works 
> is very, very different.

Yes, REYES is basically scanline.  It wasn't until quite a few years ago 
  that Renderman integrated raytracing into its pipeline.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> H. Karsten schrieb:
> 
>> Until now, I'm not able to compile PovRay without an error message ;)
>>
>> OK, one time it works. My C skill is on the level, making shader in 
>> PovMan...
> 
> C++ skills would be closer to the mark ;-)

Advanced math/geometry skills more likely.

Post a reply to this message