 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.08.2016 um 21:13 schrieb William F Pokorny:
> I reviewed in dome detail what folks have been doing with df3s lately
> and submitted a pull request #81 to enable pigment_map use in the
> density block.
>
> This will let folks do the image stacking method inside povray with
> something like:
>
> #declare PigmR = pigment {
> image_map { "Red.png" map_type 0 interpolate 2 } }
> #declare PigmY = pigment {
> image_map { "Yellow.png" map_type 0 interpolate 2 } }
> #declare PigmG = pigment {
> image_map { "Green.png" map_type 0 interpolate 2 } }
> #declare PigmC = pigment {
> image_map { "Cyan.png" map_type 0 interpolate 2 } }
> #declare PigmB = pigment {
> image_map { "Blue.png" map_type 0 interpolate 2 } }
>
> #declare Object00 = object {
> box { <0.45,0.45,0.00>,<0.55,0.55,1.00> }
> texture { pigment { rgbt 1 } }
> hollow on
> interior {
> media {
> emission 3.00
> samples 30
> density {
> gradient z
> pigment_map {
> [ 0.0 PigmR ]
> [ 0.25 PigmY ]
> [ 0.5 PigmG ]
> [ 0.75 PigmC ]
> [ 1.0 PigmB ]
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> I don't see any reason not to allow it & it works in my testing, but I'm
> also a bit surprised it was not already enabled in the code?
I don't see any obvious reason either, but I've learned that doesn't
mean anything, especially when talking about the parser. There might be
something dark and sinister lurking in the depths.
I'd feel a lot more compfortable if, for the time being, you'd just
enable `image_map` in `density{}` statements.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That would be interesting and useful indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
By the way, version still:
#version unofficial patch 3.7;
?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> FYI, I've just put UberPOV back on the tracks.
>
> The current development version includes all the latest and greatest
> from the POV-Ray 3.7.1 "master" branch, plus the advanced diffuse models
> (Oren-Nayar and Lommel-Seeliger), and can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/releases/tag/v1.37.1.1-alpha.8756754
Are HG POV goodies also candidates to be merged one day?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> FYI, I've just put UberPOV back on the tracks.
>
> The current development version includes all the latest and greatest
> from the POV-Ray 3.7.1 "master" branch, plus the advanced diffuse models
> (Oren-Nayar and Lommel-Seeliger), and can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/releases/tag/v1.37.1.1-alpha.8756754
Though I already spent quite some time to emulate Blender Shaders in POV as they
get exported, I would like to try to link the exporter to these new shading
models to find out if it gives closer results.
Oren Nayar seems straightforward because Blender has its implementation of that
very model, but what would you say is the closest to Lommel-Seeliger in Blender
shading models?
-Fresnel?
-Lambert with a Normal input ramp?
-Minnaert?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.09.2016 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> By the way, version still:
>
> #version unofficial patch 3.7;
>
> ?
You /can/ use `unofficial patch 3.7`, but if the scene makes use of any
features from official POV-Ray introduced after 3.7.0, I'd recommend
`unofficial patch 3.71`.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.09.2016 um 10:54 schrieb Mr:
> Though I already spent quite some time to emulate Blender Shaders in POV as they
> get exported, I would like to try to link the exporter to these new shading
> models to find out if it gives closer results.
>
> Oren Nayar seems straightforward because Blender has its implementation of that
> very model, but what would you say is the closest to Lommel-Seeliger in Blender
> shading models?
Since I'm no Blender user, I need to do a bit of guesswork here...
> -Fresnel?
Nope. Fresnel isn't actually a shading model, but rather a mathematical
term that appears in various shading models. From what I gather on the
internet, it seems that in Blender you can slap it onto every proper
shading model as an option (whether it makes sense or not; I suspect
some models may be sophisticated enough to already account for the
fresnel effect by themselves), and you can do the same in POV-Ray 3.7.1
by using the `fresnel` keyword directly in the `finish` block.
To the contrary: As you view the surface at a more shallow angle,
applying a Fresnel term will make the diffuse component fall off; using
the Lommel-Seeliger model, the diffuse brightness instead intensifies.
> -Lambert with a Normal input ramp?
Dunno. I wasn't able to find any reference to "Normal input ramp" on the
Internet, so someone would have to explain to me what a "Normal input
ramp" is, and how it would be plugged into the Lambert model.
> -Minnaert?
Nope. Again, to the contrary: Minnaert also makes the diffuse component
fall off at shallower angles.
I suspect Lommel-Seeliger is no suitable substitute for any of the
Blender shaders. And if you were to try to go the reverse route and try
to simulate Lommel-Seeliger in Blender, a mix of Lambert and Oren-Nayar
with a particular set of parameter settings (possibly 100% roughness,
but that's just a quick guess) might actually be the best approximation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-9-2016 12:29, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.09.2016 um 08:54 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> By the way, version still:
>>
>> #version unofficial patch 3.7;
>>
>> ?
>
> You /can/ use `unofficial patch 3.7`, but if the scene makes use of any
> features from official POV-Ray introduced after 3.7.0, I'd recommend
> `unofficial patch 3.71`.
>
Of course. Thanks!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.09.2016 um 10:29 schrieb Mr:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> FYI, I've just put UberPOV back on the tracks.
>>
>> The current development version includes all the latest and greatest
>> from the POV-Ray 3.7.1 "master" branch, plus the advanced diffuse models
>> (Oren-Nayar and Lommel-Seeliger), and can be found here:
>>
>> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/releases/tag/v1.37.1.1-alpha.8756754
>
> Are HG POV goodies also candidates to be merged one day?
There are some Hg-Povray features that I've already set my eyes on, yes.
But I haven't found the time yet to steal(*) them.
(* Since Hg-Povray doesn't support the `unofficial patch` proposal, I'd
have to label those features as original UberPOV features. And I might
actually use different syntax.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:29 schrieb Mr:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> FYI, I've just put UberPOV back on the tracks.
> >>
> >> The current development version includes all the latest and greatest
> >> from the POV-Ray 3.7.1 "master" branch, plus the advanced diffuse models
> >> (Oren-Nayar and Lommel-Seeliger), and can be found here:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/UberPOV/UberPOV/releases/tag/v1.37.1.1-alpha.8756754
> >
> > Are HG POV goodies also candidates to be merged one day?
>
> There are some Hg-Povray features that I've already set my eyes on, yes.
> But I haven't found the time yet to steal(*) them.
>
> (* Since Hg-Povray doesn't support the `unofficial patch` proposal, I'd
> have to label those features as original UberPOV features. And I might
> actually use different syntax.)
I, for one would be very happy for it, hoping the original author is not
offended, and I'm sure he can be credited somewhere properly for his
contribution...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
