 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-8-2016 4:06, clipka 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
>
Thank you! Thank you, Master!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/24/2016 10:06 PM, clipka 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
>
Good news.
Am I correct pull requests for potential features would be issued
against the UberPov develop branch?
Are new features following the "POV-Ray Patch Identification Proposal"
you proposed back in 2013?
I've two initial patches in mind. Namely the new density_file
interpolations and the tweak to the blob internal variable. In my
testing earlier this year against many old problem cases(1) the latter
blob fix looked good to me.
Bill P.
(1) - I've still to organize and package those test cases ahead of
opening a github issue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.08.2016 um 13:45 schrieb William F Pokorny:
> On 08/24/2016 10:06 PM, clipka 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
>>
> Good news.
>
> Am I correct pull requests for potential features would be issued
> against the UberPov develop branch?
That depends.
If the feature fits snugly into POV-Ray proper right away, I'd prefer to
pull it directly into the official branch.
But for features that may need testing "in the wild", I guess UberPOV
would make for a nice testbed and proving ground; after all that was
intended to be one of its main purposes.
> Are new features following the "POV-Ray Patch Identification Proposal"
> you proposed back in 2013?
Yes, I intend to continue that concept.
> I've two initial patches in mind. Namely the new density_file
> interpolations and the tweak to the blob internal variable. In my
> testing earlier this year against many old problem cases(1) the latter
> blob fix looked good to me.
As a matter of fact your density_file patch is the primary reason why
I've revisited UberPOV right now.
As for the "blob internal variable", that doesn't ring a bell in me at
present, but I suspect there's something interesting behind it as well.
Speaking of density files -- since you've been dealing with those
recently, how would you feel about implementing a 3-channel RGB variant?
Something akin to `image_map` but in 3D? I have a hunch that some people
might like to have such a thing, but I currently don't find the time myself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/26/2016 09:26 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.08.2016 um 13:45 schrieb William F Pokorny:
>
> Speaking of density files -- since you've been dealing with those
> recently, how would you feel about implementing a 3-channel RGB variant?
> Something akin to `image_map` but in 3D? I have a hunch that some people
> might like to have such a thing, but I currently don't find the time myself.
>
I'll put it on my todo list & certainly think about it.
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?
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
