Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:43 am
by Kram1032
hum, shure... maybe, it can be converted. dunno
anyway - brightness differences are too complex to get them correctly by 256 steps, in many cases.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:46 am
by Whaat
Great work as always Ono!
Looking forward to the next release!
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:56 am
by daniel_nieto
i can barely see i0.9 ...
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:07 am
by arneoog
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:02 am
by Labello
OnoSendai wrote:Kram1032 wrote:would that be so much differrent from a JPG-converted .exr?
-that's an other request, btw: can we use .exr for those emitters?
Not sure if this would be useful.. most exrs are spherical or lat/long env maps
But there also exists the possbility 2 create own HDR-images... so if isnt a that great effort to implement it... that would be great!
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:39 am
by ThatDude33
This is a great addition!
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:14 pm
by mrCarnivore
OnoSendai wrote:Kram1032 wrote:would that be so much differrent from a JPG-converted .exr?
-that's an other request, btw: can we use .exr for those emitters?
Not sure if this would be useful.. most exrs are spherical or lat/long env maps
Just because most .exr happen to be used for HDRI and therefore re latlong/spherical doesn't mean that you can't use the .exr format for something else.
Especially for emitters (or hdri, which is just the same as emitters basicly) it makes very much sense to use a hdr format like .exr. There do exist non-latlong/spherical .exr in the web and you could easily create your own.
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:26 pm
by rgigante
Great add Ono, thanks so much!
But, not to appear annoing, when do u think will be introduced the material code reorganization u mentioned?
Frankly i admit that today's materials definition is not the best, due to the presence of alot of different materials shaders (phong, diffuse, glossy_transparrncy, specular, diffuse_transmitter, blend_material, null_material together with all the different kind of mediums). Probably, please correct me if wrong, including a single BDSF shader provided also with emissive capabilities (like happens for MW and Radium) will make mat definition (also for exporter writers) more productive.
IMHO i think this is the most important step to be done before goin on and on in adding other feature since this could contribute to define a more robust and coherent material architecture for next future feature implementation.
Last, is the number of UV-set for embedded mesh still fixed to 4? I suggested alot of time ago to extend the number of UV-set to an higher number due to the introduction of blend-material... any news?
Hoping to see the new material definition i do really thank you again for your effort.
Best regards, Riccardo.
