POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.pov4.discussion.general : POV-Ray is "PIEware" Server Time
14 Jul 2024 23:09:13 EDT (-0400)
  POV-Ray is "PIEware" (Message 1 to 8 of 8)  
From: ingo
Subject: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 17 Apr 2024 08:40:00
Message: <web.661fc29589fec21d17bac71e8ffb8ce3@news.povray.org>
Just some musings, little head or tail,

For some time now I of and on work as a volunteer in a local museum. The big job
to be dome is digitizing the collection, mostly by means of photography. The
whole process has to be reviewed every now and then.

In the workflow we convert RAW images to DNG files. Every operation on the image
is stored as a kind of 'script' in the file and no pixel is changed. From the
script(s) a new image(s) can be rendered. Parametric Image Editing [1]. In a way
POV-Ray is a Parametric Image Editor/Creator, an image is rendered on a set of
rules.

I.i.r.c. POV-Ray' internal resolution(?) and or colour depth is different than
what is written to file. So the ray-tracing part is one set of parameters. The
conversion to the actual image is an other set of, mostly fixed, parameters.

Imagine that we can use something else for the second part. Lets say
ImageMagick. POV-Ray's "internal image" then would be comparable with a raw file
from a camera.

Now we can use ImageMagick to do the conversion to screen ready image. But with
the power of it a lot more can be done. All the processing it can do can be
applied to the RAW part for rendering. You could write a parametric processing
script in your POV-Ray file that is applied after rendering, or you can store it
in the 'RAW image'. You can write multiple processing scripts for different
outputs. You can use the post processing for manipulation of many aspects of the
image.

Can it be pushed even further? During rendering POV-Ray has to know with what
object a ray intersects. Can these data somehow be saved? Primary intersection,
secondary intersection? "RedSphere" is a list of pixels. BlueSphere an other
one. Now we can select pixels by object (-intersection) instead of by colour as
in the Gimp. These pixels can be fed into the post-processor, so we can apply
effects to the red sphere and not to the red box. Can such data be stored in a
DNG file? Or can we finally use SQLite ;) (SQLite as a project container format
could be nice)  Or, even store the whole POV-Ray scene in a DNG as metadata.

An other thought, could it be possible to attach such scripts directly to an
object and modify the object/texture with them while rendering?

[1] https://dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing


Post a reply to this message

From: Bald Eagle
Subject: Re: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 17 Apr 2024 17:20:00
Message: <web.66203c9418d596021f9dae3025979125@news.povray.org>
"ingo" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> During rendering POV-Ray has to know with what
> object a ray intersects. Can these data somehow be saved? Primary intersection,
> secondary intersection?

Damned good idea(s) and something I've thought about and suggested in the past,
however not to the extent of saving the data to a file!

So consider this:

We take my idea of having an object registry, so we can store all of the objects
in an array, and loop through them.
Next, we loop through all the y and x of the camera view frustum, and use trace
()  to cycle through every object in the registry for every pixel.
Using that <x, y, z> data, we have a map of the image with a sort of z-buffer.
Now we write image data perhaps using a format like:
<x, y, object1_z, . . . , objectN_z>

What do you think?

Also, I've wanted a custom version of trace () that would return ALL of the
intersections with an object, not just the first one, so we could do something
like custom inside/outside tests using crossing numbers.
Any idea on how to approach that via SDL that doesn't involve testing dozens of
thin slices of the object perpendicular to the camera ray?

- BE


Post a reply to this message

From: ingo
Subject: Re: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 18 Apr 2024 02:05:00
Message: <web.6620b4d218d5960217bac71e8ffb8ce3@news.povray.org>
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

> So consider this:
>
> We take my idea of having an object registry, so we can store all of the objects
> in an array, and loop through them.
> Next, we loop through all the y and x of the camera view frustum, and use trace
> ()  to cycle through every object in the registry for every pixel.
> Using that <x, y, z> data, we have a map of the image with a sort of z-buffer.
> Now we write image data perhaps using a format like:
> <x, y, object1_z, . . . , objectN_z>
>
> What do you think?

Go, go, go ;) Maybe also get al the bounding boxes (min- max_extent) of the
object so one does not have to test every ray against every object. But, before
you know you are writing a ray-tracer within a ray-tracer, within a ray-tracer
....

POV-Ray has so many usable internal data that are not available to the user.
I've manipulated the radiosity proces by rendering an image with the radiosity
data from an other image. What if we knew the data file format and can
manipulate it? Or photon data? Normals, intersection points, mirror things, all
stuff that's available in OpenGL for shaders.

> Also, I've wanted a custom version of trace () that would return ALL of the
> intersections with an object, not just the first one, so we could do something
> like custom inside/outside tests using crossing numbers.
> Any idea on how to approach that via SDL that doesn't involve testing dozens of
> thin slices of the object perpendicular to the camera ray?

That is difficult as shapes can have all kind of holes and protrusions. What I
tried in the past is create a "slit camera" that works like a flat bed scanner,
but with the object rotating above the sensor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slit-scan_photography You could rotate such a
camera around the object and inside the object. Or make a point source camera
and scan in a sphere shape, but there will always be "self shadowing". Some of
these must be doable with the advanced camera features.

An other way could be to "shrink wrap" a mesh around an object and use the
vertices, but how in SDL?

ingo


Post a reply to this message

From: Bald Eagle
Subject: Re: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 18 Apr 2024 13:35:00
Message: <web.662158a818d5960295196c9d25979125@news.povray.org>
"ingo" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Go, go, go ;) Maybe also get al the bounding boxes (min- max_extent) of the
> object so one does not have to test every ray against every object. But, before
> you know you are writing a ray-tracer within a ray-tracer, within a ray-tracer
> ....

:D  I've already started writing the raytracer within a raytracer to figure out
the inverse transform sampling that clipka wanted for lighting.

> POV-Ray has so many usable internal data that are not available to the user.
> I've manipulated the radiosity proces by rendering an image with the radiosity
> data from an other image. What if we knew the data file format and can
> manipulate it? Or photon data? Normals, intersection points, mirror things, all
> stuff that's available in OpenGL for shaders.

That's a good point.  We have the source, and Bill Pokorny, Jerome Grimbert, and
others have experience in following the internal workings.  We need to find some
more programmers to help the rest of us get up to speed on how it all works and
how to make edits to the code without breaking too much / everything.

> > Also, I've wanted a custom version of trace () that would return ALL of the

> That is difficult as shapes can have all kind of holes and protrusions.

Correct.  Which is why I think your approach might not work, as it seems to be
(unless I'm missing something) just a variation on my many failed past attempts.

What I'm thinking is that you:
1. shoot a ray with trace () from the camera to the World Coordinates that are
back calculated from the screen pixel position.
2. in the event that you get a Hit, you increment the position farther along the
ray by Epsilon, and initiate a subsequent trace () call.
3. repeat until you get <0, 0, 0> for the normal vector.

That seems like a guaranteed method for getting ALL of the surfaces, down to
pixel-level granularity.

And of course, you could go finer if you wanted / needed to.

The bounding box array is a good idea for partitioning / limiting the number of
trace ()- tests for any given ray.

- BE


Post a reply to this message

From: ingo
Subject: Re: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 19 Apr 2024 02:15:00
Message: <web.66220b3b18d5960217bac71e8ffb8ce3@news.povray.org>
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

> What I'm thinking is that you:
> 1. shoot a ray with trace () from the camera to the World Coordinates that are
> back calculated from the screen pixel position.
> 2. in the event that you get a Hit, you increment the position farther along the
> ray by Epsilon, and initiate a subsequent trace () call.
> 3. repeat until you get <0, 0, 0> for the normal vector.

Would it detect the hole of the doughnut?

Marching cubes should find all cavities in an object.

That brings me to another line of thought. A mesh engine. With the nearly same
SDL generate mesh' of al POV-Ray objects. Difference would be an added meshify
keyword with an int for the base resolution of the mesh. A mesh resolution
multiplier could be set in global_settings so you can make the mesh resolution
fitting the image resolution.

It would make the SDL the heart of the system, from there one can ray trace
solids, or mesh. One could push the mesh to openGL, or use a scan line renderer.

ingo


Post a reply to this message

From: ingo
Subject: Re: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 19 Apr 2024 03:50:00
Message: <web.662220ac18d5960217bac71e8ffb8ce3@news.povray.org>
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

>
> What I'm thinking is that you:
> 1. shoot a ray with trace () from the camera to the World Coordinates that are
> back calculated from the screen pixel position.
> 2. in the event that you get a Hit, you increment the position farther along the
> ray by Epsilon, and initiate a subsequent trace () call.
> 3. repeat until you get <0, 0, 0> for the normal vector.
>

Unfinished thought:

Get min-, max_extent of object.
1. trace() a corner, lets assume it's a hit.
2. At the hit point create a virtual box with the point as center.
3. Use the inside() function to test the four corners of the box.
[*]
Assume one point is inside the object
4. Trace from the other corners to the one inside the object to find points on
thesurface.
5.Move the box and repeat. Scan the whole bounding box using cubes.

[*] Ok it's simplistic and it may require some subdivision of the box before
using trace() or create 4 boxes with the inside point as common corner straight
away.
It may be more efficient to first scan one face of the bounding box with trace()
and start with the cubes from there.

ingo


Post a reply to this message

From: Bald Eagle
Subject: Re: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 19 Apr 2024 06:45:00
Message: <web.66224ab518d596021f9dae3025979125@news.povray.org>
"ingo" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Would it detect the hole of the doughnut?

"No," because we're only detecting surfaces, but
Yes, because we're doing winding numbers, so you'd be going from the the odd
number of crossings to an even number when you hit the hole.

Picture spearing the doughnut with a bamboo skewer, all the way through.

> Marching cubes should find all cavities in an object.
>
> That brings me to another line of thought. A mesh engine. With the nearly same
> SDL generate mesh' of al POV-Ray objects. Difference would be an added meshify
> keyword with an int for the base resolution of the mesh. A mesh resolution
> multiplier could be set in global_settings so you can make the mesh resolution
> fitting the image resolution.


> Get min-, max_extent of object.
> 1. trace() a corner, lets assume it's a hit.
> 2. At the hit point create a virtual box with the point as center.

Of what size?

> 3. Use the inside() function to test the four corners of the box.

A box has 8 corners.  You now have _7_ left.

> [*]
> Assume one point is inside the object
> 4. Trace from the other corners to the one inside the object to find points on
> thesurface.

You're not going to find (all the) holes with that method. Trace suffers from an
object's (potential) self-occlusion.

> 5.Move the box and repeat. Scan the whole bounding box using cubes.

Marching cubes has a lot to offer, and is definitely something that should be
implemented in parallel to the sort of pseudo-ray-marching method that I
suggested.

Using our primitives vs SDF's necessitates different methods, or at least a
conversion.  I've even looked into generating an SDF from an arbitrary mesh, and
apparently that too is possible with certain software.


Post a reply to this message

From: ingo
Subject: Re: POV-Ray is "PIEware"
Date: 19 Apr 2024 07:55:00
Message: <web.66225a9c18d5960217bac71e8ffb8ce3@news.povray.org>
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

> A box has 8 corners.  You now have _7_ left.

 ... incomplete thought disclaimer ;) I was doing a quick 2d  visualization.
>
> You're not going to find (all the) holes with that method. Trace suffers from an
> object's (potential) self-occlusion.

Yes that's related to your other question, "what's the box size". Too big and
you miss holes too small and you and you waste cpu ticks.

It would be helpful if we had Roentgen images. Can we create them? Maybe. Fill
the object with an absorbing medium. X-Ray from three sides, but how to analyze
the result? Again, it would be nice if the ray density sampling data could be
written to a file (per object).

But, I think your method, trace, move by epsilon, trace, should work. You'd get
all the object/ empty space transitions. Depending on the goal, instead of
tracing from the camera, you could scan from one surface of the bounding box to
the opposite. Store all intersections in arrays of arrays. For test render each
point as a small sphere.


ingo


Post a reply to this message

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