Subject:
|
Re: A few ideas to toss around.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:53:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
750 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Miguel Agullo writes:
> Actually, a much better solution would be to scrap POV altogether and go
> with Blender or something of the kind
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=8296
Hey cool! I had Blender installed at one time, but never got around to
learning how to use it. This might be a good time to start.
> The reasoning behind it is that POV is the worst possible way of learning 3D
> rendering. Placing the lights illustrates why very well.
>
> Placing lights is a delicate, iterative process. I can easily keep a sketchy
> representation of a 3D scene in my head, but not to the detailed extent
> needed for a top-of-the-line lightning scheme. Which is why most 3D programs
> use a WYSIWYG user interface.
Which is why I like placing them in MLCAD. I move the light, run it through
L3PAO, extract the coordinates into my light settings and render. It's all a
bit cumbersome though.
> Spots not only require target and point-at coordinates, but also radius,
> falloff and tightness parameters. Shall we scrap spots because they are too
> complex? In fact, using well placed spots will *decrease* rendering times,
> as less light rays are taken into consideration. Spots should be the most
> common lights in our scenes, yet they are rarely ever present because they
> are really hard to figure out in POV, specially if you have not used another
> 3D program before. In WYSIWYG rendering environments, however, they are dead
> easy to comprehend.
>
> And there are other parameters such as "shadowless", etc.
>
> Ideally, the way to go is use a lightning environment similar to the
> modeling environment (i.e. where you can *see* what you are doing before
> rendering it). In this sense, there are several shareware modelers for POV
> that will probably help with the task - Make sure that the they can load and
> display properly POV data, something considerably more complicated than
> simply saving POV data.
>
> PC:
> http://www.povray.org/resources/links/3D_Programs/POV-Ray_Modelling_Programs/
Thanks for that link. Looks like some interesting possibilities there.
> MAC:
> http://mac.povray.org/tools_links/modelers.html
>
> >
> > While I'm on the subject, a similar thing could probably be done for the camera.
>
> I've always wondered why light parts and not camera. Maybe because automatic
> camera placement is more user-friendly than letting the user bury the camera
> directly inside a brick and leave him or her wondering why POV only spits
> out black images.
Sometimes I set the camera radius wrong and get that :)
> > All this would mean that stunning results could be had using a simple
> > graphic interface and without having to delve too deeply into POVs language.
>
> Many of the concepts that you quickly learn playing around with MLCad or
> Leocad have a direct application in general 3D computer graphics. With POV,
> you don't have the oppotunity to play around before you're pretty familair
> with the help file. And then half the actions needed to achieve our
> objectives are completely useless outside POV.
Which is what prompted my original post. POV's text interface is a bit
arcane to say the least, but you've provided some interesting links that
I'll definitely investigate further. Thanks.
Allister
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A few ideas to toss around.
|
| (...) Actually, a much better solution would be to scrap POV altogether and go with Blender or something of the kind (URL) reasoning behind it is that POV is the worst possible way of learning 3D rendering. Placing the lights illustrates why very (...) (21 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
