SkIndigo 1.1.16
ehm....
I thank you very very much CTZn for your explainations and tips, I really appreciate, but...
I barely have an idea of what you are talking about..
You know, I'm a poor simple user of Indigo/Skindigo and I'm almost quite ignorant of what stands behind the façade..
I think I get you when you say that fireflies concerns a single pixel, and that colored dots are bigger instead. I have an idea of what you're talking about, i think, and happened when I checked aperture diffraction during the rendering phase: coloured shiny and blurry dots everywhere. Since then, I never turned on aperture diffraction during rendering any more. That was my solution
About the SPLAT filter, in SkIndigo it is sort of a hidden parameter (which we can access through a "view xml" button, correct me if I'm wrong whaat). So you suggest me to change from MR_cubic to MN_c, is that right? I'm gonna try that. Thank you!
Last thing: I cannot recall any day I played with a supersampling parameter. Help whaat!
Thank you a lot CTZn by the way. I appreciate your efforts to make a noob understand indigo more deeply
I thank you very very much CTZn for your explainations and tips, I really appreciate, but...
I barely have an idea of what you are talking about..
You know, I'm a poor simple user of Indigo/Skindigo and I'm almost quite ignorant of what stands behind the façade..
I think I get you when you say that fireflies concerns a single pixel, and that colored dots are bigger instead. I have an idea of what you're talking about, i think, and happened when I checked aperture diffraction during the rendering phase: coloured shiny and blurry dots everywhere. Since then, I never turned on aperture diffraction during rendering any more. That was my solution
About the SPLAT filter, in SkIndigo it is sort of a hidden parameter (which we can access through a "view xml" button, correct me if I'm wrong whaat). So you suggest me to change from MR_cubic to MN_c, is that right? I'm gonna try that. Thank you!
Last thing: I cannot recall any day I played with a supersampling parameter. Help whaat!
Thank you a lot CTZn by the way. I appreciate your efforts to make a noob understand indigo more deeply
Maybe I'm a bit of a geek, excuse-me Pibuz I don't realize it. Thanks for telling !
About the filter, the different options as exposed in the documentation under 'renderer settings', near the end of the section (p.22). I'm reproducing it:
Since I am at it:
Maybe you can feed this SKIndigo option you told about with ? (inside the <renderer_settings> tag)
Oh actually super_sample_factor of 1 means none, try 2 or 3 instead.
About the filter, the different options as exposed in the documentation under 'renderer settings', near the end of the section (p.22). I'm reproducing it:
I think MN_cubic can still be used but with altered settings (edit: see the following parameters in doc), I can't use it properly myself (have not tried). Gaussian (edit: as splat filter) is told blurry, but downsizing with MN_cubic borrows the argument imho.splat_filter::box
Box filter. Causes bad aliasing, don't use
splat_filter::gaussian
Gaussian filter with standard deviation of 0.35 pixels.
splat_filter::mn_cubic
Mitchell-Netravali cubic filter. Good all-round filter with little aliasing.
Please refer to the paper 'Reconstruction Filters in Computer Graphics' by Mitchell and Netravali, 1988, for
more information.
Since I am at it:
Code: Select all
<super_sample_factor>1</super_sample_factor>
<splat_filter>
<gaussian/>
</splat_filter>
<downsize_filter>
<mn_cubic>
<blur>0.6000000238</blur>
<ring>0.200000003</ring>
</mn_cubic>
</downsize_filter>
Oh actually super_sample_factor of 1 means none, try 2 or 3 instead.
obsolete asset
this is what happened when i applied an external .jpg to the displacement channel. SU uv set
i think the problem may be that i only applied a color to the surface (skindigo UVmapping option not availiable in RC menu) then applied the displace to roughen it up? so it seems a UV set was not assigned to a colored surface, thus the displace can't find UV.
i think the problem may be that i only applied a color to the surface (skindigo UVmapping option not availiable in RC menu) then applied the displace to roughen it up? so it seems a UV set was not assigned to a colored surface, thus the displace can't find UV.
- Attachments
-
- Capture.JPG (62.14 KiB) Viewed 3859 times
Hey,
I just checked out Skindigo for the first time. Nice implementation Whaat
Anyway..I wanted to ask,are the calculations you are making to go from IOR to reflection percentage value something you invented ? (I remember asking it already a while ago, but I've lost all the info by now )
They are acting quite Ok.
Ps. I mean calculations inside def to_ior()
I just checked out Skindigo for the first time. Nice implementation Whaat
Anyway..I wanted to ask,are the calculations you are making to go from IOR to reflection percentage value something you invented ? (I remember asking it already a while ago, but I've lost all the info by now )
They are acting quite Ok.
Ps. I mean calculations inside def to_ior()
Thanks suv!suvakas wrote:Hey,
I just checked out Skindigo for the first time. Nice implementation Whaat
Anyway..I wanted to ask,are the calculations you are making to go from IOR to reflection percentage value something you invented ? (I remember asking it already a while ago, but I've lost all the info by now )
They are acting quite Ok.
Ps. I mean calculations inside def to_ior()
The IOR/reflection conversion is just a hack based on visual comparison.
Are the 1.1.5 preview scenes different from these? They're don't seem to be working.
EDIT : I checked the download link for the 1.1.5 preview scenes, and it's says no such link exists. If I
EDIT2 : Now using indigo v1.1.6 and the mathching version of skindigo but the previews dont work.. It just gives me a little "could not load" image.
EDIT : I checked the download link for the 1.1.5 preview scenes, and it's says no such link exists. If I
EDIT2 : Now using indigo v1.1.6 and the mathching version of skindigo but the previews dont work.. It just gives me a little "could not load" image.
Hi all! Hi whaat!
I'm here simply to report that the ALPHA MAP feature in this 1.1.16 unstable version isn't working like it is supposed to
The sky renders black and that's all right, but the walls aren't plain white: they seem to feel the effect of sun's direct shadows and of bumps maps.
Just a report here, nobody to blame for we know it is a beta version.
I'm here simply to report that the ALPHA MAP feature in this 1.1.16 unstable version isn't working like it is supposed to
The sky renders black and that's all right, but the walls aren't plain white: they seem to feel the effect of sun's direct shadows and of bumps maps.
Just a report here, nobody to blame for we know it is a beta version.
- Attachments
-
- wrong alpha.jpg (210.39 KiB) Viewed 3291 times
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests