![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Fabian Brau
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the normals in megapov? (~100k)
Date: 15 Dec 1999 04:22:31
Message: <38575E6A.810C7411@umh.ac.be>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
To be precise (because I didn't say that povray is good and
Megapov is not good, because I haven't check this :)):
I said:
> The absolute size of an object has no importance! Only
> the relative size between object is important. If you scale a complete
> scene by a factor x and if you change the camera in the good way, you
> must
> notice that nothing has changed, you must obtain the same scene, the
> same image.
I didn't check yet but if MegaPov do this and not Povray so MegaPov is
the good one :)!
Fabian.
Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastas cs tut fi> wrote ...
> > Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] kopp com> wrote:
> > : Hmmm... you'll have to mess with the 'accuracy' to get that second image
> to
> > : sharpen up. Then it will look the way you want it to.
> >
> > This 'accuracy' keyword is new to me. What does it do?
>
> Time to look at the documentation. ;-)
> (It adjusts the coarseness of the points used to estimate the gradient of
> the pattern which is used to determine the normal.)
>
> > If I scale an object 5 times larger and move the camera and light source
> > 5 times farther, I would expect to get the exact same image.
>
> Yes. I agree. That is the reason it needs to be fixed.
>
> > It would be this way if it was a heightfield instead of a normal
> modifier.
> > Thus I would expect the normal modifier to behave like a heightfield. What
> > you are doing is changing the slope of the normal modifier when scaling.
> > With a heighfield the slope doesn't change if we scale it uniformly.
> > So I think that povray's default behaviour is the correct one.
>
> Unfortunately, no. The official POV-Ray will at times fail at what you want
> it to do. See my post in text.scene-files for a demonstration. MegaPov
> will act in the way you describe.
> (followups to povray.unofficial.patches)
>
> Anyway, in the next MegaPov you will be able to use #version 3.1 to attain
> backwards compatibility in this area (as well as with layered textures).
>
> -Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Fabian Brau
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the normals in megapov? (~100k)
Date: 15 Dec 1999 04:27:58
Message: <38575FB6.F0F0ABF6@umh.ac.be>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
???? Waht does my message here?
Fabian Brau wrote:
>
> To be precise (because I didn't say that povray is good and
> Megapov is not good, because I haven't check this :)):
>
> I said:
> > The absolute size of an object has no importance! Only
> > the relative size between object is important. If you scale a complete
> > scene by a factor x and if you change the camera in the good way, you
> > must
> > notice that nothing has changed, you must obtain the same scene, the
> > same image.
>
> I didn't check yet but if MegaPov do this and not Povray so MegaPov is
> the good one :)!
>
> Fabian.
>
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastas cs tut fi> wrote ...
> > > Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] kopp com> wrote:
> > > : Hmmm... you'll have to mess with the 'accuracy' to get that second image
> > to
> > > : sharpen up. Then it will look the way you want it to.
> > >
> > > This 'accuracy' keyword is new to me. What does it do?
> >
> > Time to look at the documentation. ;-)
> > (It adjusts the coarseness of the points used to estimate the gradient of
> > the pattern which is used to determine the normal.)
> >
> > > If I scale an object 5 times larger and move the camera and light source
> > > 5 times farther, I would expect to get the exact same image.
> >
> > Yes. I agree. That is the reason it needs to be fixed.
> >
> > > It would be this way if it was a heightfield instead of a normal
> > modifier.
> > > Thus I would expect the normal modifier to behave like a heightfield. What
> > > you are doing is changing the slope of the normal modifier when scaling.
> > > With a heighfield the slope doesn't change if we scale it uniformly.
> > > So I think that povray's default behaviour is the correct one.
> >
> > Unfortunately, no. The official POV-Ray will at times fail at what you want
> > it to do. See my post in text.scene-files for a demonstration. MegaPov
> > will act in the way you describe.
> > (followups to povray.unofficial.patches)
> >
> > Anyway, in the next MegaPov you will be able to use #version 3.1 to attain
> > backwards compatibility in this area (as well as with layered textures).
> >
> > -Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Nieminen Juha
Subject: Re: What's wrong with the normals in megapov? (~100k)
Date: 15 Dec 1999 04:44:04
Message: <385762e4@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Fabian Brau <fab### [at] umh ac be> wrote:
:> The absolute size of an object has no importance! Only
:> the relative size between object is important. If you scale a complete
:> scene by a factor x and if you change the camera in the good way, you
:> must
:> notice that nothing has changed, you must obtain the same scene, the
:> same image.
: I didn't check yet but if MegaPov do this and not Povray so MegaPov is
: the good one :)!
No, povray does this (except if you use normal_maps) and megapov doesn't.
Megapov does it the wrong way.
--
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |