Indigo 1.0.1

Post by **OnoSendai** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:10 am

Yes, the number of values must equal the number of values

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:11 am

lol, that sentence reads very strange, now

N_o_S = NoS

Pinko5 · Post by **Pinko5** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:39 am

Ono!!!!!!
Pinko.

zsouthboy · Post by **zsouthboy** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:14 am

Was not expecting your 1.0 branch to show up so soon

Thanks Ono!

Kosmokrator · Post by **Kosmokrator** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:18 am

i believe....more unbelievable things to come in future releases...

New perseption of 3d computer image generated graphics will come!!!

Camox · Post by **Camox** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:53 am

Thanks Nick !

Zom-B · Post by **Zom-B** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:21 am

OnoSendai wrote:What's the problem with ur pool scene?

There is an FireFly party going on at the pool! The longer it take, the more friends get invited

the Fireflies don't like to swim, so no of them is visible in the water.
I removed exponent_map & bump map, but the result still isn't satisfying (see attachment):?

the scene is lightened by an env_map... model is a pool box (with thickness), and an water plane inside (depth ~1.7m).

BTW: Ono, could you give us some data examples for the regular_tabulated spectrum type, or maybe somebody else could drop some lines about this...
Its like getting a alien spaceship for birthday... its totally cool, but I have no Idea how to handle it and what it actually does

filippo · Post by **filippo** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:58 am

wonderfull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

filippo

tizxx · Post by **tizxx** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:33 am

As always ...

SUPERB !

Thank you very much. Nicholas.

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:02 am

if you want under water caustics, you should make your water a volume.
I've no idea, if that'd affect the above fireflies in *any* way....

@ Ono: why do you need the value-amount in the tabulated spectrum? can't you "simply" check, how many values there are?
Oh, and what's if you want to have a-linear values? For example, if there is a peak at, say, 454.5 nm but you don't want to give enough details for half-nano-meters?

what about:
[wave length] : [value] ?

definitely minor. In most cases, linear exactness will be enough

WytRaven · Post by **WytRaven** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:06 am

@ Kram:

If you have nonlinear values then interpolate them to get linear values.

See this for an example of how it should be done

http://www.indigorenderer.com/joomla/fo ... php?t=2838

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:08 am

I said, it's very low prior.

I know, that you can interpolate them.

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:44 am

regular_tabulated spectrum

can it be used for all material types not just diffuse as in the example?
Absorption and scattering as well?
IOR?

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:13 am

<start_wavelength>0.4E-06</start_wavelength>
<end_wavelength>0.7E-06</end_wavelength>

how do you read these wavelengths?
What would 350nm to 750nm be in these values?

Big Fan · Post by **Big Fan** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:25 am

well I'm going to be the fly in everyones ointment ( if I'm not already) and suggest that this may be increasing accuracy but its adding needless complexity.
when it comes down to it people wanting to use a renderer for commercial purposes aren't going to want to read through screeds of scientific data and camera measurements - they want to get a render out.
what is the point of modelling a particular Nikon or Canon camera for instance?
I think this calculated accuracy stuff can be taken too far.
I am not saying ono isn't doing a very good job its just I think there needs to be a reality check on it usefulness
If people can access a few accurate presets thats helpful - if they need to study the whole subject and an in depth manual it sucks up time they don't have

my 2 cents

Indigo 1.0.1

Who is online