POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.unofficial.patches : Blurred reflections Server Time
7 Dec 2022 18:45:08 EST (-0500)
  Blurred reflections (Message 15 to 24 of 24)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Kenneth
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 10 Feb 2018 16:30:00
Message: <web.5a7f63efba6b2c30a47873e10@news.povray.org>
Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Le 18-02-10 à 02:59, Kenneth a écrit :

> >
> > I didn't know that reflection would 'borrow' the specular's metallic
> > in such a
> > case. Thanks.

>
> It's a leftover/backware compatibility thing.
> Before the reflection block was introduced, there was no way to know if
> any metallic modifier was intended for phong, specular or reflection.
>

Ah. That explains the 'mystery' I used to wonder about in the older 3.6.x days--
I could never figure out exactly what was going on with metallic. Thanks!
Mystery solved ;-)


Post a reply to this message

From: And
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 16 Jul 2018 10:15:00
Message: <web.5b4ca75eba6b2c30152ce7b80@news.povray.org>
Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
is too important)


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 16 Jul 2018 10:34:45
Message: <5b4cad05$1@news.povray.org>
Am 16.07.2018 um 16:10 schrieb And:
> Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
> is too important)

One could argue that "too important" also means "too important to screw up".

So the answer to your question may depend on whether a sufficiently good
and robust implementation (including a sufficiently good syntax and all)
can be... well, implemented.

My gut feeling is that the answer is "yes".


Post a reply to this message

From: And
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 18 Jul 2018 02:05:00
Message: <web.5b4ed83bba6b2c30152ce7b80@news.povray.org>
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 16.07.2018 um 16:10 schrieb And:
> > Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
> > is too important)
>
> One could argue that "too important" also means "too important to screw up".
>
> So the answer to your question may depend on whether a sufficiently good
> and robust implementation (including a sufficiently good syntax and all)
> can be... well, implemented.
>
> My gut feeling is that the answer is "yes".

Well
But what is the disadvantage with recently implement?


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 18 Jul 2018 09:31:44
Message: <5b4f4140$1@news.povray.org>
Am 18.07.2018 um 08:03 schrieb And:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 16.07.2018 um 16:10 schrieb And:
>>> Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
>>> is too important)
>>
>> One could argue that "too important" also means "too important to screw up".
>>
>> So the answer to your question may depend on whether a sufficiently good
>> and robust implementation (including a sufficiently good syntax and all)
>> can be... well, implemented.
>>
>> My gut feeling is that the answer is "yes".
> 
> Well
> But what is the disadvantage with recently implement?

If you want my opinion: Speed.

Blurred reflections work best when the render engine includes a good
framework for unbiased stochastic rendering, so that all oversampling
stuff -- blurred reflections, area lights, media, focal blur and
what-have-you-not -- don't cause the render time to explode exponentially.

POV-Ray does not have any such framework. UberPOV does, but it is still
rudimentary and probably needs lots more work.


Post a reply to this message

From: And
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 19 Jul 2018 10:30:00
Message: <web.5b509f2cba6b2c304dbcf4f0@news.povray.org>
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 18.07.2018 um 08:03 schrieb And:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> Am 16.07.2018 um 16:10 schrieb And:
> >>> Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
> >>> is too important)
> >>
> >> One could argue that "too important" also means "too important to screw up".
> >>
> >> So the answer to your question may depend on whether a sufficiently good
> >> and robust implementation (including a sufficiently good syntax and all)
> >> can be... well, implemented.
> >>
> >> My gut feeling is that the answer is "yes".
> >
> > Well
> > But what is the disadvantage with recently implement?
>
> If you want my opinion: Speed.
>
> Blurred reflections work best when the render engine includes a good
> framework for unbiased stochastic rendering, so that all oversampling
> stuff -- blurred reflections, area lights, media, focal blur and
> what-have-you-not -- don't cause the render time to explode exponentially.
>

Yeah... indeed. Unbiased stochastic rendering grew rapidly (and showed its
advantage) during this ten years.

> POV-Ray does not have any such framework. UberPOV does, but it is still
> rudimentary and probably needs lots more work.


Post a reply to this message

From: Mr
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 9 May 2020 16:30:06
Message: <web.5eb7128bba6b2c306adeaecb0@news.povray.org>
"And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
> is too important)
Things did evolve in the last two years. Now that Anti Aliasing method 3 is in
the main POV-Ray trunk, the said "framework" is there. The syntax... almost as
well, with things like the finish level fresnel paving the way to a similar
approach for roughness maybe. My question is, since then, did any other branch
than Uberpov also try to add this feature?


Post a reply to this message

From: William F Pokorny
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 9 May 2020 21:44:48
Message: <5eb75c90$1@news.povray.org>
On 5/9/20 4:29 PM, Mr wrote:
> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
>> Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
>> is too important)
> Things did evolve in the last two years. Now that Anti Aliasing method 3 is in
> the main POV-Ray trunk, the said "framework" is there. The syntax... almost as
> well, with things like the finish level fresnel paving the way to a similar
> approach for roughness maybe. My question is, since then, did any other branch
> than Uberpov also try to add this feature?
> 
> 
I'm not aware of any.

Bill P.


Post a reply to this message

From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 10 May 2020 11:24:13
Message: <5eb81c9d$1@news.povray.org>
On 2020-05-09 4:29 PM (-4), Mr wrote:
> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
>> Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
>> is too important)
> Things did evolve in the last two years. Now that Anti Aliasing method 3 is in
> the main POV-Ray trunk, the said "framework" is there. The syntax... almost as
> well, with things like the finish level fresnel paving the way to a similar
> approach for roughness maybe. My question is, since then, did any other branch
> than Uberpov also try to add this feature?

The knowledge base alludes to MegaPOV having some blurred reflection 
capability, though I cannot find it in the MegaPOV documentation.  But 
MegaPOV development terminated long before UberPOV was released.

Since development of UberPOV has wound down, I've found myself reverting 
to RC3Metal from the Object Collection, which works with standard 
POV-Ray.  What seems to work best for me with RC3Metal is to do a bunch 
of EXR renders with different seeds in an animation loop, then read them 
back as image maps and average them in a pigment_map.  To save time, I 
save the photons for the first 3 to 5 frames, then reuse them round 
robin for the remaining frames.  If there are no mutually reflecting 
surfaces, I just use a single render with a high sample count.

Overall, UberPOV does a better job than RC3Metal, though, especially 
with specular highlights.


Post a reply to this message

From: Mr
Subject: Re: Blurred reflections
Date: 11 May 2020 04:45:01
Message: <web.5eb90e88ba6b2c306adeaecb0@news.povray.org>
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2020-05-09 4:29 PM (-4), Mr wrote:
> > "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> >> Will blurred reflection integrate into official version one day? (this function
> >> is too important)
> > Things did evolve in the last two years. Now that Anti Aliasing method 3 is in
> > the main POV-Ray trunk, the said "framework" is there. The syntax... almost as
> > well, with things like the finish level fresnel paving the way to a similar
> > approach for roughness maybe. My question is, since then, did any other branch
> > than Uberpov also try to add this feature?
>
> The knowledge base alludes to MegaPOV having some blurred reflection
> capability, though I cannot find it in the MegaPOV documentation.  But
> MegaPOV development terminated long before UberPOV was released.
>
> Since development of UberPOV has wound down, I've found myself reverting
> to RC3Metal from the Object Collection, which works with standard
> POV-Ray.  What seems to work best for me with RC3Metal is to do a bunch
> of EXR renders with different seeds in an animation loop, then read them
> back as image maps and average them in a pigment_map.  To save time, I
> save the photons for the first 3 to 5 frames, then reuse them round
> robin for the remaining frames.  If there are no mutually reflecting
> surfaces, I just use a single render with a high sample count.
>
> Overall, UberPOV does a better job than RC3Metal, though, especially
> with specular highlights.

Hi Cousin Ricky
I had noticed your work on RC3Metal and also on sun & sky atmosphere, the
blender exporter could benefit a lot from your experiments!
However for the current issue, since exporter is already using Blender frames to
export a clock animation, I assume using clock for something else will add to
the already unreadable code. Also it already exports the possibility of a user's
bump_map, so micronormals have to combine with it, and also with the finish map
trick used to emulate a specular map.

For now I started testing a single "micro bump" layer averaged with the user
bump map and it kind of works better than I remembered, when I initially chose
Uberpov. Maybe I'm forgetting a use case that made me throw it away initially...

My latest attempt totally lost the user specular map visibility as it's kind of
eaten away by the micro bump... Next try, I should make it so that the one entry
with minimal specular also doesn't carry the microbump So the finish map trick
becomes a finish&bump_map metamap trick...

In the averaged normal_map I used 0.5 as the microbump entry value and same for
the user bump map.

I don't know if it  will break when I add another layer with different seed of
microbump to the average in the same clockframe. then I would probably state
0.25 for each micro bump layer and 0.5 for user bump texture,... with microbump
muted in less specular areas(?), roughly speaking:


texture{
        pigment_pattern {
            uv_mapping image_map{jpeg "PATH\\TO\\UserSpecularMap.jpg" map_type 0
}
        }
        texture_map {
            [0
                pigment {rgbft<0.8, 0.8, 0.8, 0, 0>}
                finish {finish_WITH_MIN_SPEC}
                normal {user Bump_map only}
            ]
            [1
                pigment {rgbft<0.8, 0.8, 0.8, 0, 0>}
                finish {finish_WITH_MAX_SPEC}
                normal {average of microbump(s) and user bump_map}
            ]
        }
    }


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2021 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.