 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In the scene below, the use of focal blur makes the image much brighter, as
though the blurred component is added to the original sample, rather than
some kind of (possibly weighted) average. I'm not sure if this is supposed
to happen or not, but I've tweaked all the blur parameters to the extremes
and nothing has changed the extra brightness. What do you think?
#version 3.1;
global_settings
{
assumed_gamma 1.000
ambient_light 0.000
max_trace_level 25
}
#declare blur = 1;
camera
{
location < 0.000, 0.500,-1.000>
look_at < 0.000, 0.000, 0.000>
#if(blur=1)
aperture 0.100
blur_samples 7
focal_point < 0.000, 0.000, 0.000>
confidence 0.900
variance 1/128
#end
}
light_source
{
<-3.000, 2.500,-2.000>
color < 1.000, 1.000, 1.000>
}
sphere
{
< 0.000, 0.000, 0.000>, 0.200
texture
{
pigment
{
colour < 1, 1, 1>
}
}
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Problem solved - there's a gamma correction applied at the end of the
focal_blur function, and I'm sure it shouldn't be there, since when you take
it out, my scenes render exactly as I think they should.
So - Am I right here? Will this be fixed in the next version? Will
backward compatability be maintained through use of the #version feature?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have never seen this kind of brightening when using focal blur. What's
up here?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:30:28 +1000, "Edward Coffey"
<e.c### [at] ugrad unimelbeduau> wrote:
>Problem solved - there's a gamma correction applied at the end of the
>focal_blur function, and I'm sure it shouldn't be there, since when you take
>it out, my scenes render exactly as I think they should.
>So - Am I right here? Will this be fixed in the next version? Will
>backward compatability be maintained through use of the #version feature?
Hi, Edward. This bug was fixed in v3.1b in January 1999. See "Changes
between POV-Ray v3.1 and v3.1g" posted in the p.a.f-a-q group. Please
consider using the latest version as there have been some significant
bugfixes since v3.1a.
--
Alan
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13 Oct 1999 05:21:05 -0400, Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastascstutfi>
wrote:
> I have never seen this kind of brightening when using focal blur. What's
>up here?
In older versions of v3.1, the gamma correction was applied twice when
using focal blur but this is no longer the case.
--
Alan
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Kong <ako### [at] pacbellNO-SPAMnet> wrote in message
news:G1AEOLmlZvp7iT8NlsmUmOmTtMda@4ax.com...
> Hi, Edward. This bug was fixed in v3.1b in January 1999. See "Changes
> between POV-Ray v3.1 and v3.1g" posted in the p.a.f-a-q group. Please
> consider using the latest version as there have been some significant
> bugfixes since v3.1a.
From the "About POV-Ray(tm) for Windows" dialog box:
Version 3.1g.msvc.win32 [Pentium II optimised]
And the source I use under Linux is the generic UNIX 3.1g source.
I'm sorry if I've got mixed up here, but I just can't see where the problem
is - HELP :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
