hum, shure... maybe, it can be converted. dunno
anyway - brightness differences are too complex to get them correctly by 256 steps, in many cases.
textured emitters
- daniel_nieto
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:45 am
- Location: Ciudad Guzman, Jalisco, México
- Contact:
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!OnoSendai wrote:Not sure if this would be useful.. most exrs are spherical or lat/long env mapsKram1032 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?
- ThatDude33
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:26 pm
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:20 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
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.OnoSendai wrote:Not sure if this would be useful.. most exrs are spherical or lat/long env mapsKram1032 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?
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.
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.
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests