It would be nice to be able to specify colors in HLS as well as RGB.

Currently, you can use a macor to convert individual colors. But this does not work in color_maps where you want smooth gradations/interpolations between two or several colors.

When you press alt+b or access the “about” dialog in the Help menu it displays some text including software version number and list of contributors.

It would be nice to be able to select and copy this text using this mouse. Sometimes in the newsgroup I have to tell people what version of POVray I am using, and typing the version number can be a pain.

pov 3.7 Can not identify the Chinese.I give the texture map filename in chinese,it turns out parse error.

When working with predefined materials, it would be useful to have something like:

#if (!Use_photons)
  #default { interior { caustics 1 } }
#end

#include "my_predefined_materials.inc"

Default medias or IORs could also be useful.

Now the editor remembers only the cursor positions of the loaded files when starting a new PR session. It would be more friendly to remember whether the window was split or not, as well as the bookmarks.

As emerged as an idea during the discussion of FS#299, an SDL / POV-Ray editor feature would be useful that allows API documentation via formal comments, e.g. in include files:

/**
 * Creates a car object.
 * @param a
 *        description of param a
 * ...
 */
#macro car(a,b,c)
  ...
#end

In addition to the ability of (auto-)generating a documentation file from such comments, an editor window feature would be convenient that allows popup display of a macro’s (object’s / parameter’s / ...) documentation section.

Up to POV-Ray 3.7 RC7 it has not been possible so far to declare custom properties for POV-Ray’s objects, which would be especially useful for complex objects defined in include files.

Currently, if you want to have an object (e.g. a car) with certain variable parameters (e.g. colour, wheel rotation, ...) defined in an include file and the parameters set by a scene file which uses the include file, you have to choose one of the following approaches:

1. use a macro

#macro car(colour, wheelrot, ...)
  ...
#end

or, 2. check parameters declared before, e.g.

#declare car =
union {
  
  #ifdef (colour)
    #local colour_internal = colour;
  #else
    #local colour_internal = default_colour;
  #end
  
}

The resulting object would be used in the following way:

  #include "car.inc" // include file once
  object {
    car(rgb <1,0,0>, 0, ...) // macro approach
  }

  // other approach
  #declare colour = rgb <1,0,0>;
  #declare wheelrot = 0;
  ...
  #include "car.inc" // include file every time you want to have a car object instance
  object {
    car
  }

Needless to say, both approaches are not quite optimal.

• The macro approach needs only one #include directive and name conflicts will (hopefully) not be a problem. However, one would have to look up the parameter order of the macro in the include file, in the worst case every time the macro is used.
• The other approach needs as many #include directives as car objects shall be instantiated, there can arise name conflicts with other inculde files used in the scene, and a (potentially long) list of parameters has to be declared before each #include. On the other hand, with this approach for any value it is clear which information it gives, e.g. #declare colour = rgb <1,0,0> can easily be read as ‘set car colour to “red”‘.

My suggestion would be creating an SDL feature to

• declare which properties a certain object can have
• set these properties inside the object statement in which the object is used.

One step up could be to even declare object classes along with them.

This could look like this:

// include file code
class car { // alternatively (without classes) use #declare car = object { ...
  property colour = rgb <1,0,0>; // with default colour
  
  union {
    ...
  }
}

// scene file code
car { // alternatively (without classes) use object { car ... }
  colour rgb <0,0,1>
}

Note that this solution makes the declarations much more concise and easy-to-read. Especially in scenes with many includes and animation scenes where objects’ properties have to be manipulated according to sometimes complex functions, this would be very useful. Please also consider that such user-defined objects can have dozens of properties.

When rendering only a region of a file, using the command-line options +sc/+sr/+ec/+er, the area of the image that is excluded comes out as black in the final PNG.

Expected behaviour is for it to be transparent.

In version 3.7.0.RC7.msvc10.win64, there is a bug in rendering Bézier patches in which four points (along one edge) are all the same point.

The rendering can be seen here:
http://i.imgur.com/eq2UIXR.png [Edit: See attachment for the rendering]

As you can see, there is a visible unwanted artifact in the corner of each patch. The two patches shown are essentially the same, except with the 4×4 matrix of vertices transposed (just to demonstrate that simply transposing it didn’t fix it).

Expected rendering is a smooth surface without the artifact.

Below is the code used to render the above example.

#version 3.7;

global_settings { assumed_gamma 1.0 }

camera {

  location <45, 31, -10>
  look_at <40, 21, 200>
  right x*image_width/image_height

}

light_source {

  <660, 300, -525>
  color rgb 1

}

Example 1: First point in each row is the same point
bicubic_patch {
type 1 flatness 0.001
u_steps 4 v_steps 4
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <34.4968, -23.78125, 0>, <35.2168, -23.78125, -0.72>, <35.2168, -23.78125, -3>,
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <34.4968, -22.10256, 0>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -0.72>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -3>,
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <33.9709, -21.55577, 0>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -0.72>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -3>,
<32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.30556, -21.50298, 0>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -0.72>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -3>
rotate 180*x scale 1.4
translate ←5, 0, 0>
pigment { color <1, 0, 0> }
} Example 2: First row is all the same point
bicubic_patch {

  type 1 flatness 0.001
  u_steps 4 v_steps 4
  <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>, <32.2168, -23.78125, 0>,
  <34.4968, -23.78125, 0>, <34.4968, -22.10256, 0>, <33.9709, -21.55577, 0>, <32.30556, -21.50298, 0>,
  <35.2168, -23.78125, -0.72>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -0.72>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -0.72>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -0.72>,
  <35.2168, -23.78125, -3>, <35.2168, -21.57244, -3>, <34.52483, -20.85299, -3>, <32.33359, -20.78352, -3>
  rotate 180*x

  scale 1.4
  pigment { color <1, 1, 0> }

}

Currently POV-Ray does not support rendering lens flare effects, however, they can be simulated using a macro (include file) by Chris Colefax.

I would like to suggest adding a feature to POV-Ray to support lens effects “natively” since

• as far as I know the macro has been designed for POV-Ray 3.1 so with each new POV-Ray version it gets more likely that this macro does not work properly any more
• the macro does not work when rendering with radiosity, probably because the macro creates the lens effect by using a pigment with a high ambient value (which is ignored by POV-Ray 3.7’s radiosity algorithm).

Additionally, the macro is not quite easy to employ because

• it needs to know the exact camera parameters (location etc.) and defines an own camera itself so any important camera information has to be stored if the effect has to work as expected
• it does not (actually cannot) take into account that objects may (partially) hide the lens effect
• reflections and refractions (of light sources) cannot be combined with it properly - the user would have to calculate both the point where the reflected/refracted light source can be observed and the shape it then has due to distortion, and in more complex scenes such computations are nearly impossible in SDL.

I would suggest integrating such a lens flare rendering feature with the “looks like” mechanism you already have for light sources. Several parameters that can currently be set for the macro - including effect brightness and intensity, lens options and whether to create a flare at all - could be set for the light source.

Then POV-Ray could store the location and colour of each ray that finally intersected the “looks like” object of a light source and, having finished the main rendering, from that data compute a partially transparent “lens flare layer” eventually mixed into the rendered image. By this, the above mentioned problems could be avoided:

• an object fully or partially intersecting a light source’s “looks like” object would also reduce the number of pixels used to create a flare - and therefore reduce that flare until fully hiding it
• the same goes for reflected and/or refracted versions of the “looks like” object
• the camera’s location and other properties would be used automatically
• and finally, as a feature supported by POV-Ray itself, there would be neither compatibility issues nor problems like the effect not fitting together with radiosity.

Do not get me wrong, I would not expect POV-Ray to really calculate intersections that naturally happen in a camera lens, causing lens flares. Effects looking appropriate can actually be created just in 2D space (as some graphics programs do support) so the work to be done would, as far as I have any overview, be:

• storing, as mentioned above, the relevant data for pixels showing “looks like” objects
• calculating a lens flare from that data after the render has finished
• overlaying the rendered image with the newly created lens effect.

While familiarizing myself with the code, I found some small changes in the solve_cubic function that lead to a significant speedup.

In my experience, “pow” is by far the slowest function in math.h and replacing it with simpler functions usually makes a tremendous impact on the speed (it’s an order of magnitude slower than sqrt/exp/cbrt/log).

solve_cubic has a “pow” function that can be replaced by cbrt (cubic root), which is standard in ISO-C99 and should be available on all systems. Separate benchmarks of solve_cubic function show this change almost doubles the speed and does not lower the accuracy. As solve_cubic is part of the solution of quartic equation, this improves the speed for many primitives. Testing with a scene containing many torus intersection tests (attached below) I still observed almost 10% speedup (Intel, 4 threads, 2 hyperthreaded cores, antialiasing on, 600×600: from 91 to 84 seconds). And this is for a torus, where a lot of time is spent in the solve_quartic and cubic solver is only called once! Similar speedup should be expected for prism, ovus, sor and blob.

I do believe the cubic solver can be done without trigonometry, but that would mean changing the algorithm, introducing new bugs and requiring a lot of testing. However, the trigonometric evaluation can still be simplified (3% speedup in full torus benchmark).

These changes don’t affect the algorithm at all, they are mathematically identical to the existing code, so the changes can be applied immediately. I also included other changes just as suggestions. Every change is commented and marked with [SC 2.2013].

This sadly does not speedup the sturm solver, which uses bisection and regula-falsi and looks very optimized already.

The test scene I used has a lot of torus intersections from various directions (shadow rays, main rays, transmitted rays).

the pigment {} and normals {} sections allow spatial variation of color, transparency and normal map. On the other hand, the specular parameter is a fixed scalar. This removes many possibilities. For instance, specularity could vary in space (speckles of oil or water on a surface, worn-out finish, having specularity reduce where the pigment transparency increases) and have color components. With current settings, the light’s color is simply multiplied by the scalar specified by “specular”, whereas multiplying each component with different color could create diverse effects (the “metallic” keyword already acts similar to duplicating the specular color from the pigment). The syntax could be exactly the same as for the pigment (all the patterns, color maps, image maps and functions would apply, allowing reuse of most of the code).

The effect can now be partially faked by having patterned textures, but it requires a very complex code and the lack of layering of patterned textures makes it difficult to vary the specularity and pigment separately.

In a similar way, roughness and brilliance could also vary in space.

Doing the same for varying reflectivity would be more difficult, as it has angular dependence and possibilty of Fresnel calculation, but it could at least be a full color instead of a simple scalar multiplier. For instance, having a blue surface that reflects only red component of the light should not be impossible.

I think at least part of this functionality actually makes the scene description language more uniform and self-consistent.

At times, the current method of specifying texture for
CSG components and compounds is restricting. The issue
pops up now and then, see e.g.

http://news.povray.org/povray.pov4.discussion.general/thread/%3Cweb.4799def8e1857b77c150d4c10%40news.povray.org%3E/

http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3Cweb.4fc892634f065c00e32b83540@news.povray.org%3E/

http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3Cweb.5073e9f7dae1fbb2d97ee2b90%40news.povray.org%3E/

There should be a new CSG option “texture_mode” or similar, which could take
one of the following values:

preserve (the current behavior)
cutaway (the current behavior when specifying cutaway_textures)
override (replace all individual textures with compound texture)
layer (layer the compound texture over the existing textures)

and possibly, more involved

modify/merge: if both element and compund textures are simple, i.e.
not layered or mapped, override all default values of the element
textures with the values from the compound texture. The idea would
be to, e.g., have the elements already pigmented but then apply
common normal or finish properties.

The SDL currently provides no way to compute the exact direction of a spline at a given location, even though mathematically this is a piece of cake: The first-order derivative of any spline section gives you the “speed” as a vector function, and is trivial to compute for polynomial splines (which are behind all spline types that POV-Ray supports); the normalized “speed” vector, in turn, gives the “pure” direction.

For exact direction/speed computations, I propose to extend the SDL invocation syntax as follows to allow for evaluating a spline’s derivative:

    SPLINE_INVOCATION:
        SPLINE_IDENTIFIER ( FLOAT [, SPLINE_TYPE] [, FLOAT] )

or

    SPLINE_INVOCATION:
        SPLINE_IDENTIFIER ( FLOAT [, FLOAT] [, SPLINE_TYPE] )

where the second FLOAT will specify the order of derivative to evaluate (defaulting to 0). In order to compute the position, direction, and acceleration of an object traveling along a certain spline, one could then for instance use:

    #declare S        = spline { ... }
    #declare Pos      = S(Time);
    #declare VSpeed   = S(Time,1);
    #declare VAccel   = S(Time,2);
    #declare Dir      = vnormalize(VSpeed);
    #declare Speed    = vlength(VSpeed);
    #declare AccelDir = vnormalize(VAccel);
    #declare GForce   = vlength(VAccel) / 9.81;

Alternatively, a mechanism may be devised to create a spline representing another spline’s derivative; however, it would be debatable whether the syntax should be parameter-like (being an added information that could be overridden again when creating other splines from such a derived spline), or operation-like (converting the spline), and in the latter case how it should affect spline type (and consequently control points); so the spline invocation parameter approach might be more straightforward, with less potential surprises for the user.

With very fast renders and very large output files, the message queue can fill up because the producers are not limited by IO, while the consumer performance is limited by disk IO. Consequently, the message queue can fill up to exhaust all available memory. The solution is to build in some better control of pending output data in the message queue on the producer side. This will also pave the way for message communication over slow links (i.e. a network).

The so-called shadow line artifact (http://wiki.povray.org/content/Knowledgebase:The_Shadow_Line_Artifact) which affects objects with a ‘normal’ statement as well as smooth meshes and heightfields can be really annoying sometimes. Currently the only way to remove it is to make the object shadowless, which isn’t a good solution except in very special cases.

This algorithm could remove the artifact: If the actual normal vector of the object points away from the light source (its dot-product with the light vector is negative) but the perturbed normal points towards it (dot-product positive), then ignore the first shadow-test intersection with the object itself.

There are alternative ways of implementing an equivalent functionality:

- Don’t check the condition (if it’s too difficult to check due to how the code is designed) but always ignore the first intersection with the objects itself. This will work properly with closed surfaces but not with open ones, so it might need to be a feature for the user to turn on with a keyword (similar to eg. ‘double_illuminate’).

- Alternatively, don’t ignore the first intersection, but instead ignore the “opposite side” of the object’s surface (again, possibly only if a keyword has been specified). In other words, if we are rendering the outer side of the object, ignore its inner side when shadow-testing, and vice-versa.

- Perhaps simply add a feature to make surfaces one-sided (similarly to how they can be made so in OpenGL and similar scanline rendering systems). In other words, the inner side of a surface is completely ignored everywhere, making the object virtually invisible from the inside. The advantage of this feature would be that it can have uses other than simply removing the shadow line artifact.

Whenever some object is to be periodically repeated in some kind of grid, you can achieve this with macros, but it
a) wastes a lot of resources

 even if object references are implemented in the future, wrapper with its own transformation matrix still takes space and bookkeeping

b) is not infinite

 annoying when making infinite planar tiling with arbitrary objects
 like an approximate water surface or tiling with real bricks
 or anything that needs to extend to horizon

c) is not optimized for periodicity

I think it can be very efficiently implemented as an object that takes a finite object argument (like CSG functions) and can be periodic in either 1D,2D or (possibly dangeorous?) 3D with specified period. In each dimension, the number of repetitions can be any integer or even infinity (or max_int). Something like
periodicity <2,2,Infinity> 2 copies in 1 direction, 2 in the other, infinite in the third
grid_separation <1,2,2> 1 unit size in first direction, 2 unit sizes in the other two

All the code needs to do is raytrace in the current unit cell and if the ray passes uninterrupted, pass it through the neighbouring unit cell (which means trace a translated ray through the same object). The object itself would just feel an additional clipping box, everything else would work seamlessly.

In case of infinite column of transparent object, max_trace stops the infinite loop anyway.

This is just a suggestion, I realize this is more of a long-term change but it is quite easy to implement and would simplify a large number of projects.

October to middle November, I prodduced a 5 minutes video mainly py POVRAY.

Here a part of the video.ini file

#

The best time for a picture....

I set the day time and so the position of the sun by “clock=”

Normal I document my source very good, but this time,
I forgot the clock seting for the picture of my book cover.

So I would find it very practicall to put the clock value
and other setings for rendering
into EXIF data of the picture.

The combination of metallic reflection with conserve_energy causes the reflection to lose colour, as demonstrated by the following scene:

global_settings {
  max_trace_level 10
}

camera {
  right x*image_width/image_height
  location  <-2,2.6,-10>
  look_at   <0,0.75,0>
}

light_source {
  <500,300,150>
  color rgb 1.3
}

sky_sphere {
  pigment {
    gradient y
    color_map {
      [0.0 rgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>]
      [0.7 rgb <0.0,0.1,0.8>]
    }
  }
}

plane {
  y, 0
  texture { pigment { color rgb 0.7 } }
}

#declare M=
material {
  texture {
    pigment {rgbt <1.0,0.7,0.2,0.99>}
    finish {
      ambient 0.0
      diffuse 0.5
      specular 0.6
      roughness 0.005
      reflection { 0.8, 1.0 metallic }
      conserve_energy
    }
  }
  interior { ior 1.5 }
}

box {
  <-0.2,0,-2.3>, <0.0,4,0.3>
  material { M }
  rotate z*5
  rotate x*2
}

The following scene gives a comparison of current conserve_energy handling in standard shadow computations vs. photons.

Note how the rather highly reflective slabs fail to cast shadows, except where the photons target sphere enforces computation of shadow brightness to be done by the photons algorithm.

For more realistic shadowing without the need to enable photons, I suggest do add proper conserve_energy handling to the shadow computation code (which shouldn’t be too much effort).

global_settings {
  max_trace_level 10
  photons { spacing 0.003 media 10 }
}

camera {
  right x*image_width/image_height
  location  <-2,2.6,-10>
  look_at   <0,0.75,0>
}

light_source {
  <500,300,150>
  color rgb 1.3
  photons {
    refraction on
    reflection on
  }
}

sky_sphere {
  pigment {
    gradient y
    color_map {
      [0.0 rgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>]
      [0.7 rgb <0.0,0.1,0.8>]
    }
  }
}

plane {
  y, 0
  texture { pigment { color rgb 0.7 } }
}

#declare M_Glass=
material {
  texture {
    pigment {rgbt 1}
    finish {
      ambient 0.0
      diffuse 0
      specular 0.2 // just to give a hint where the sphere is
    }
  }
  interior { ior 1.0 }
}

#declare M_PseudoGlass=
material {
  texture {
    pigment {rgbt 1}
    finish {
      ambient 0.0
      diffuse 0.5
      specular 0.6
      roughness 0.005
      reflection { 0.3, 1.0 fresnel on }
      conserve_energy
    }
  }
  interior { ior 1.5 }
}


sphere {
  <1.1,1,-1.3>, 1
  material { M_Glass }
  photons {
    target 1.0
    refraction on
    reflection on
  }
}

// behind target object
box {
  <-0.2,0,-2.3>, <0.0,4,0.3>
  material { M_PseudoGlass }
  rotate z*1 // just to better see the reflection of the horizon
}

// before target object
box {
  <2.4,0,-2.3>, <2.6,4,-0.3>
  material { M_PseudoGlass }
  photons { pass_through }
  rotate z*1 // just to better see the reflection of the horizon
}

In other languages if you encounter an error you’ll often be presented with a stack trace showing not only the file and line number the error occurred at, but also any calling functions and _their_ calling functions and so on.

Currently, Povray reports the line number of the error as well as the last five or so lines prior to the error. This is usually OK in simple scenes, but breaks down when you start making use of inclusion and macros.

Let’s say you have a macro located in a file that you then include in your scene. Within your scene you call the macro multiple times, passing input to it. However, by accident you pass _invalid_ input to the macro at some point, resulting in an error when parsing. In this case Povray will report the error as belonging to the macro whereas the actual bug exists in the calling code. If the macro is called more than once in your scene it can be difficult to figure out _which_ instance is the one supplying the bad input.

Not sure how much of this is achievable in Povray.

I probably don’t have to explain why the camera_view pigment in MegaPOV was important, but I will list some reasons anyway:

1) post-processing could be performed in-scene
2) new types of focal blur effects could be created
3) feedback fractals were possible

I’m sure there are many others, as this is one of those features that has undetermined potential!

Would be great to have a “Reload” option in the File menu to manually reload the current file from disk, discarding all subsequent changes since the last save.

Would be great if there were a “Rename” option in the editor File menu to rename the current file name. Otherwise, you have to close the file, rename it in file manager, then open the file again, thus loosing the current tab position and undo history for the file.

Someone built a version of Povray with internal support for automatic subdivision of meshes. See:

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~xwu/Pov-Sub/

Would like to see this feature added natively to Povray.