 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
> : Regardless the fact the you and Warp, both advanced users, can figure out
> : a somewhat complicated method of rendering this pattern, does not make
> : it intuitively obvious to others and I doubt less than 10% of all Pov
> : users could do it themselves. Patches are for more than mere convenience
> : of parsing speed and memory effeciency.
>
> If we add a patch to povray every time someone wants his own pattern
> type, povray would grow wildly and there would be a lot more maintenance
> problems.
Well, this reminds me recent discussion in c.g.r.r., where discussion
about hard-coded textures vs. "coded shaders" took place. Perhaps
someone could create patch for texture plugins: user creates it's own
texture with script, then specifies it as object texture and renders.
Best would be, if texture is in Renderman format (i.e. Renderman
shader). Any takers?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
> Well, this reminds me recent discussion in c.g.r.r., where discussion
> about hard-coded textures vs. "coded shaders" took place. Perhaps
> someone could create patch for texture plugins: user creates it's own
> texture with script, then specifies it as object texture and renders.
> Best would be, if texture is in Renderman format (i.e. Renderman
> shader). Any takers?
http://www.cinenet.net/~mercier/bigpict.html
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> > Well, this reminds me recent discussion in c.g.r.r., where discussion
> > about hard-coded textures vs. "coded shaders" took place. Perhaps
> > someone could create patch for texture plugins: user creates it's own
> > texture with script, then specifies it as object texture and renders.
> > Best would be, if texture is in Renderman format (i.e. Renderman
> > shader). Any takers?
>
> http://www.cinenet.net/~mercier/bigpict.html
>
Well, indeed it is done already, but this page seems to be really old
and seems like he haven't published source code. Does anyone have
contact with him?
At least this page shows, that shaders in POVRay are possible...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
> Well, indeed it is done already, but this page seems to be really old
> and seems like he haven't published source code. Does anyone have
> contact with him?
> At least this page shows, that shaders in POVRay are possible...
I have no more data than what I provided. Did you search the site ?
This was allegedly accomplished with a Pov v2.2 patch and the source
should be available somewhere.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:50:26 -0700, Ken wrote:
>
>
>Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
>> Well, indeed it is done already, but this page seems to be really old
>> and seems like he haven't published source code. Does anyone have
>> contact with him?
>> At least this page shows, that shaders in POVRay are possible...
>
>I have no more data than what I provided. Did you search the site ?
>This was allegedly accomplished with a Pov v2.2 patch and the source
>should be available somewhere.
The source was on the old ftp.povray.org, and is still on ftp.cdrom.com
in /pub/povray somewhere. Nobody's ever gotten it to compile and run
properly, and it's not been ported to 3.x. It's also got some severe
limitations, among them the fact that it doesn't support uv mapping and
the derivative stuff from SL. Those things are both fairly vital, so
the average SL texture from the net wouldn't be usable.
However, with Nathan's UV patch (especially if we all pitched in and
extended it to the objects that still need it) and the information in
the '99 SIGGRAPH paper on tracing Ray Differentials, it could almost
work. It's still a lot of work, and you'd probably want to ignore
POVMAN and just start over.
Other suggestions have included creating a plugin interface that
allows for compiled shaders in shared libraries, or in Java classes.
Unfortunately, neither of those solutions scales to every platform
POV supports (DOS has no Java, apparently, and definitely no shared
library support.) In addition, of course, such an interface would
violate POVLEGAL so it couldn't be distributed unofficially.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> Other suggestions have included creating a plugin interface that
> allows for compiled shaders in shared libraries, or in Java classes.
> Unfortunately, neither of those solutions scales to every platform
> POV supports (DOS has no Java, apparently, and definitely no shared
> library support.) In addition, of course, such an interface would
> violate POVLEGAL so it couldn't be distributed unofficially.
Well, about compiled shaders: from the c.g.r.r. thread it could be seen,
that compiled shaders are 25% faster than "interpreted shaders". Of
course this result comes from folks in Pixar, but I don't think that it
will be much lower, when mere mortals try to implement it. Seems
negotiable to me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker <par### [at] fwicom> wrote:
: Other suggestions have included creating a plugin interface that
: allows for compiled shaders in shared libraries, or in Java classes.
: Unfortunately, neither of those solutions scales to every platform
: POV supports (DOS has no Java, apparently, and definitely no shared
: library support.)
Also shared libraries (which I suppose is compiled code) of one platform
will not work in another.
The programmable shaders are an interesting feature, though. There still
are things that are impossible, or at least extremely hard and/or slow to
make with the current textures. The solution so far has been to add more
and more pattern types to the povray core. This is not a very good solution
in the long run.
This effect can be seen in Moray. Since it lacks a scripting language,
each time you want to do something not directly supported you have to
make/download a plugin that does it. If you want to do something slightly
different you have to make a new plugin or modify an existing plugin.
This results in megabytes and more megabytes of plugins in a chaotic
jungle of little files. If this continues enough, Moray and all its plugins
will take Gigabytes of space with all the resource and maintenance problems.
A powerful scripting language would take some tens of kilobytes of code
and no amount of plugins would be enough to achieve the same functionality.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Ron Parker <par### [at] fwicom> wrote:
> : Other suggestions have included creating a plugin interface that
> : allows for compiled shaders in shared libraries, or in Java classes.
> : Unfortunately, neither of those solutions scales to every platform
> : POV supports (DOS has no Java, apparently, and definitely no shared
> : library support.)
>
> Also shared libraries (which I suppose is compiled code) of one platform
> will not work in another.
>
Yes, it is compiled, but it is more like Java's bytecode or some
assembler. So portability will not be an issue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:50:26 -0700, Ken wrote:
> >
> >
> >Vahur Krouverk wrote:
> >
> >> Well, indeed it is done already, but this page seems to be really old
> >> and seems like he haven't published source code. Does anyone have
> >> contact with him?
> >> At least this page shows, that shaders in POVRay are possible...
> >
> >I have no more data than what I provided. Did you search the site ?
> >This was allegedly accomplished with a Pov v2.2 patch and the source
> >should be available somewhere.
>
> The source was on the old ftp.povray.org, and is still on ftp.cdrom.com
> in /pub/povray somewhere. Nobody's ever gotten it to compile and run
> properly, and it's not been ported to 3.x. It's also got some severe
> limitations, among them the fact that it doesn't support uv mapping and
> the derivative stuff from SL. Those things are both fairly vital, so
> the average SL texture from the net wouldn't be usable.
>
> However, with Nathan's UV patch (especially if we all pitched in and
> extended it to the objects that still need it) and the information in
> the '99 SIGGRAPH paper on tracing Ray Differentials, it could almost
> work. It's still a lot of work, and you'd probably want to ignore
> POVMAN and just start over.
>
Can you point out, in which paper it was? How can I see it? Can You send
me a copy or if it is not possible (due to copyright), then how can I
purchase this paper (preferably online, assuming that it does not cost
me arm and leg). I'm not saying, that I will start implementing of
shader, I'm just curious. Although...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:31:39 +0300, Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>Ron Parker wrote:
>> However, with Nathan's UV patch (especially if we all pitched in and
>> extended it to the objects that still need it) and the information in
>> the '99 SIGGRAPH paper on tracing Ray Differentials, it could almost
>> work. It's still a lot of work, and you'd probably want to ignore
>> POVMAN and just start over.
>>
>Can you point out, in which paper it was? How can I see it? Can You send
>me a copy or if it is not possible (due to copyright), then how can I
>purchase this paper (preferably online, assuming that it does not cost
>me arm and leg). I'm not saying, that I will start implementing of
>shader, I'm just curious. Although...
http://www-graphics.stanford.edu/papers/trd/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
