"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I ran a quick example to highlight the issue.
>
> While they shouldn't appear exactly the same, I would expect a similar
> behaviour.  In the top left image, there is no normal and the reflection is
> straight down as it should be.  The top right and bottom left images use
> granite and agate for example (you could use some others like bumps as well to
> illustrate)The reflection is blurred somewhat and spread outward as would be
> expected, but the overall reflection median is still in line straight down like
> the un-normalled image.  Now in the bottom right, a wrinkle normal is applied.
> Again, the reflection is blurred a bit as expected, but the overall
> reflectionmedian is now skewed down towards the left.  Changing the angle of
> view does not change this, in this example at leats, the reflection is always
> skewed toward the left.
>
>
> //START
> camera{
>   up y
>   right x*image_width/image_height
>   angle 45
>   location <0,500,-1000>
>   look_at  0
> }
>
> light_source{
>   <500,1500,-500>
>   rgb 1
> }
>
> cylinder{0,1000*y,10 pigment{rgb <1,0,0>} finish{ambient 1 diffuse 0.5}}
>
> plane{y,0
>   material{
>
>   texture{
>     pigment{rgb 1}
>     finish{
>       ambient 0
>       diffuse 0.5
>       reflection {1}
>     }
> //    normal{granite 0.25 scale 50}
> //    normal{agate 0.25 scale 5}
> //    normal{wrinkles 0.25 scale 0.005}
>   }
>   }
> }
>
> //END

Excellent example.
Much lesser extent, it seems that also *Dents* has a few problem (much less,
much less...).

And Dents:

* 3.5.11.12  Dents
When used as a normal pattern, this pattern uses a specialized normal
perturbation function. *

--
Carlo

Post a reply to this message