Quote - > Quote - Bill, I think modern jets have more of a matte or eggshell finish, could be wrong though.  I guess it depends on my reference I'm comparing yours to.

I didn't even look. I'm gonna say I was shooting for a plastic model of an A4, not an actual A4. grin It is, after all, the size of a sneaker here.

Ah, models planes are completely differnet.  I've actually done one or two myself before, but not that well.

Also that generic UV mapping stuff sounds interesting.

dreamlandmodels (Tom) is a master of the generic UV layout. He does not UV map objects in a way that results in your need to use a template. Almost every part of a prop he makes is designed to use any generally flat UV-based image or procedural.

A classic example of this technique is my color chip prop, aka the rounded board.

I will show you.

BB, if you keep this up, I can see a new window appearing in the Poser UI sooner than later!

O_o

One of these is flipped over so you can see the back.

The wood texture that is loaded on it is not seamless. But it looks like it is.

The mapping of the top and the four sides is such that if you took those polygons and forcibly smashed them flat, in a rubbery stretchy way, the original image fills them exactly.

The bottom face is just the image reversed.

But - you don't see it on most textures.

For example, each drawer in a chest should look like it's a different piece of wood. But we want to use the same generic texture on the whole thing.

So Tom arranged the drawer faces so that they are cut out of the generic texture from different areas, and different orientations. It's still all one texture on the piece, but it looks like it was made with custom textures because there are discontinuities where they should be, and continuities where they should be.

But - we can use any texture on the piece - anything at all !

Lots of people think we're using seamless textures - we're not. Some of them I made seamless, but I didn't have to.

Wow, this is really cool stuff you guys are doing.  As for the board, yeah except for that one area with the one texture, you probably wouldn't notice the cheat unless you were paying a ton of technical attention to it.

So is the UV mapping on e.g. your color chip what's termed a "planar" projection, in Hexagon, BB?

Or is it "cubic"?

Or something else?

I've been using the planar projection option on the Tardis wall prop I've been working on, and that seems to work pretty well with the various singles (e.g. the marbles) from your an Tom's  furniture sets.

Instead, making an unwrapped UV map, either manually, or using Photoshop's refactor UV maps option doesn't give me workable results (although I think these options would if I was instead painting a texture onto / for the model).

Cheers

I don't know modeling tools names for UV mappings - and I never used Hex.

I'm somewhat confident that "planar" means purely 2D. For example, you use the X,Y coordinates (scaled of course) to map to an image, and just ignore Z. That's planar. So, no I'm not doing planar.

A box or cubic mapping would probably not be it, either.  I believe in that there are six planar maps set up in a box shape. For each polygon, you look at which box it most closely faces and then planar map to that.

I don't know what to call this mapping. Smash the box flat mapping?

"smash the box flat" as opposed to "gently unwrap the box along its seams"?

Yeah, playing around some more with the planar map, the sides of my Tardis wall prop... which is similar to a plank, but with those circular, hexagonally arranged, indents in the front... the sides are not right with the planar... the edge pixels are just stretched or smeared down the sides.

Front and back work okay.

Closest result I get in Hexagon is with the cubic projection, scaling that to fit... but its not the same deal...

I am plagued with questions about the perception of color!

I have been doing my own investigations, as well as studying published research.

This was prompted by my attempt to assemble a large collection of colors in an upcoming shader set - 11 shades of achromatic black-gray-white and 89 colorful colors.

Three things overwhelmed me:

1. Attempting to name the colors was a huge effort. There is incredible disagreement about color names. Google "chartreuse" images and be astonished that these people are using the same word for all these colors.

2. Attempting to even classify them into broad categories led to difficulties.

3. I don't think perceived brightness is well understood.

Each rank is supposed to be the same hue. But look at the yellow rank - red is top, so move three ranks over from there. Now look at the darker versions (outer pawns). They look olive to me - not at all yellow.

The rank just to the right of red is clearly orange, IMO. What is the name just to the left?!? Raspberry?

How about between orange and yellow. It's very distinctive - shouldn't that have a name? Mustard?

Why do I resort to foods when I don't know a color's name?

Do you think that within each rank, the change in brightness is perceptually equal?

How about in the achromatic (gray scale) row at the bottom?

I will reveal the brightness scale I used to create the values within a rank later.

I've always considered colour perception to be fairly relative...

As I understand it, biologically males and females perceive colours differently.. for starters.

Hmmm... citation needed there... googles aha, here you go...

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/07/14/do-women-perceive-color-differ-3/

Well... reading that, there seems to be some evidence of biological variations in colour perception?

How I would have done it...

From red at the top, in a clockwise fashion around the inner ring:

Red, Orange, Yellow-Orange, Yellow, Chartreuse, Yellow-green, Green, Grass, Turquoise,  Teal, Sky, Light Blue, Blue, Purple, Violet, Violet-Pink, Magenta, Red-Violet. 

And then each darker step would have the name and the percentage of black that has been added. 

The Gray scale would be White, the percentage of gray (such as 10% Gray, 40% Gray, etc) and Black. 

Just to throw in what my perceptions and opinions are...all 2 cents that they're worth, heh.

Monkey Cloud, that article is like saying blonds blow better bubbles while skydiving in a hurricane than red heads.

Names of colour are meaningless, people have no colour memory.

Your colour wheel should be a sphere, populated with ovals (yes I realize ovals are 2d), and no gloss. Any finish is a whole new ball game.

Attached Link: http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/category.aspx?ca=8

You dye wool? Hmmm...I think there is a sitemail sometime in your future...

<~~~ Spinner

Quote - The rank just to the right of red is clearly orange, IMO. What is the name just to the left?!? Raspberry?

Claret!

Quote - How about between orange and yellow. It's very distinctive - shouldn't that have a name? Mustard?

Ochre?

Quote - Monkey Cloud, that article is like saying blonds blow better bubbles while skydiving in a hurricane than red heads.

Not really to that extreme though. What the article is saying is that women that can use all four pigments in the eyes are able to distiguish various shades of colors that three or less pigmented eyes can't. I'll never see those color hues, I don't understand them and it would be like trying to explain the color green to someone who is colorblind in that spectrum. So technically, yes, some women can see better color range then other women and men. :P

To find names for colors I would have just grabbed a bunch of paint chips and took the names off those.

Quote - Monkey Cloud, that article is like saying blonds blow better bubbles while skydiving in a hurricane than red heads.

Names of colour are meaningless, people have no colour memory.

Your colour wheel should be a sphere, populated with ovals (yes I realize ovals are 2d), and no gloss. Any finish is a whole new ball game.

 

He he... I disagree...

Red heads definitely blow better bubbles, in most extreme scenarios

Course, my red head may be another guy's strawberry blonde...

Yeah... not sure how well that article backed up my vague notion... LOL.

I do agree colour names are pretty tricky. Pantone's system, or a similar route, would likely be a good bet??

name them after their hexadecimal numbers?

Quote - I've always considered colour perception to be fairly relative...

As I understand it, biologically males and females perceive colours differently.. for starters.

Hmmm... citation needed there... googles aha, here you go...

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/07/14/do-women-perceive-color-differ-3/

Well... reading that, there seems to be some evidence of biological variations in colour perception?

My concern about color classification is not about relative color perception, or even about differences amongst various humans, although I recognize these as factors.

I'm thinking more about simple classification systems, as an aid to finding the color you want.

For example, I have attempted, via math, to classify my colors into the following broad color categories:

A) Achromatic

B) Blue

C) Cyan

G) Green

M) Magenta

O) Orange (and browns)

R) Red

Y) Yellow

I based the classification on the traditional "hue" angle, as used in an HSV color picker.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I found olive green classified as yellow. To me it's not even close to yellow - it's absolutely green. But in terms of hue measurement, it's solidly in the yellow band. (My solution was to nudge the color a bit out of the yellow band, so that the classifier would agree with me, rather than update the classifier and risk moving other colors around. It's a big job to re-build the thumbnails.)

This led me to investigate color perception. I found this interesting researching that confirmed my personal observation. As a color gets darker, whatever green is in it becomes more emphasized.

http://www.uv.es/psicologica/articulos1.04/2-LILLO.pdf

I want to emphasize that I'm not picking these colors on the basis of some abstract desire for even use of the color wheel. I've made no such attempt. I selected colors I like and find useful and avoided a good chunk of colors (pinks) that I just don't think are that commonly needed.

Quote - How I would have done it...

From red at the top, in a clockwise fashion around the inner ring:

Red, Orange, Yellow-Orange, Yellow, Chartreuse, Yellow-green, Green, Grass, Turquoise,  Teal, Sky, Light Blue, Blue, Purple, Violet, Violet-Pink, Magenta, Red-Violet. 

Just to throw in what my perceptions and opinions are...all 2 cents that they're worth, heh.

I used Cyan, instead of Teal, and fewer categories than I show in this wheel, but I largely agree with a lot of these names.

I find the two-name names less useful. I prefer Celadon over Yellow-green, for example. Thus, my question about raspberry.

And yet if I named it Color #74 it would be even more useless. I think Candy Apple Red is a great name, myself, and I know EXACTLY what color that is.

Quote - Your colour wheel should be a sphere, populated with ovals (yes I realize ovals are 2d), and no gloss. Any finish is a whole new ball game.

I disagree, based on my goals. I'm not trying to make a color wheel. I'm trying to decide on colors to include in the set and I have to limit myself to 100. It helps to see them as they will be used, such as in car paint, to decide if I have a redundant pair that are so similar that you can only tell them apart when there is no gloss.

I am building and examining many levels of gloss, though.

Here's a sampling of 14 of my new shaders, all based on one of my color choices, which I decided to call Amber - 215, 150, 45.

On the left are the seven new BB Glossy. On the right are Candy Paints.

Quote - For color references, Pantone seriously has made it easy.  They have tons of books with charts on the different colors, making it easy to, well, "pick a name". They have software, as well, but the cost is steeper.  (I use them as a reference for dyeing wool, and we just bought the Kids' book, as it doesn't have all the extra stuff we don't need. YMMV)

Really? I looked there. My "Amber" is 7604 CP - I like my name better.

Yellow Ochre almost, but not ochre alone. There is also red ochre, purple, and brown.

I actually have yellow ochre as one of my chosen colors. See attached.

[NOTE: This does not look the same in a browser as it does in Poser. I don't know why.]

Quote - To find names for colors I would have just grabbed a bunch of paint chips and took the names off those.

Been doing that. The trouble is that when I see one I like and cross reference other sources for general agreement, I find big problems. Like my chartreuse example.

I used a bunch from Crayola because I couldn't settle the matters, and I think childhood is cool.

That doesn't help you find them or remember them.

What's easier to remember: c364c3 or Fuchsia?

By the way, that was inspired by the Crayola Fuchsia, which I didn't think was perfect so I adjusted it to what I wanted, but kept the name. Crayola's is c154c1.

Oh, I do love that color! I am a purple person. Not blue purples but red purples....mmmm Siberian Amethysts, I have two of those stones in rings.....

I shall refrain from making grabbyhands at the Candy Glitter shader and simply try to be patient. ^_^

Are the new BB Glossy the ones that work with either specular or IDL lighting automatically?

Going with the Crayola (etc) names sounds like as good a route as any to me

My favourite colour name is "Monkey Green" of course...

Quote - As a color gets darker, whatever green is in it becomes more emphasized.

Back when I was painting model railway scenery, we often used to make greens by mixing yellow and black. "Real" green was too bright and didn't look realistic, so that was reserved for highlighting. I'd assumed this effect was something to do with paint formulation, but this is an interesting explanation. It makes sense, since the human eye is most sensitive to green wavelengths when you're discussing monochromatic light. The CIE colour triangle also contains more green hues than other colours, most of which can't be reproduced by any means, by the way. The human eye can perceive a lot of shades that can't be displayed or printed. (I did a lot of work on colour perception and colorimetry while experimenting on colour TV systems a long time ago. Made my head spin. Then I designed a monochromator for a scientific instrument company. I still don't understand colour perception though, sorry...)

Quote - This does not look the same in a browser as it does in Poser. I don't know why.

Some browsers implement something called colour management, a concept I was only recently made aware of. I'm reading up on it now. It would have profound implications for digital artists displaying their works online, it seems. 

BB, it's a shame you're not in the UK: there's  a Stephen Fry program on Radio 4 tomorrow morning about the language of colour.

Maybe you can get it on iPlayer?

Here's a site that will show if your browser supports color management.

There's a lot to be said about color management in a CGI workflow, but BB's sketchbook isn't the place.

Quote - > Quote - I've always considered colour perception to be fairly relative...

As I understand it, biologically males and females perceive colours differently.. for starters.

Hmmm... citation needed there... googles aha, here you go...

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/07/14/do-women-perceive-color-differ-3/

Well... reading that, there seems to be some evidence of biological variations in colour perception?

My concern about color classification is not about relative color perception, or even about differences amongst various humans, although I recognize these as factors.

I'm thinking more about simple classification systems, as an aid to finding the color you want.

For example, I have attempted, via math, to classify my colors into the following broad color categories:

A) Achromatic

B) Blue

C) Cyan

G) Green

M) Magenta

O) Orange (and browns)

R) Red

Y) Yellow

I based the classification on the traditional "hue" angle, as used in an HSV color picker.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I found olive green classified as yellow. To me it's not even close to yellow - it's absolutely green. But in terms of hue measurement, it's solidly in the yellow band. (My solution was to nudge the color a bit out of the yellow band, so that the classifier would agree with me, rather than update the classifier and risk moving other colors around. It's a big job to re-build the thumbnails.)

This led me to investigate color perception. I found this interesting researching that confirmed my personal observation. As a color gets darker, whatever green is in it becomes more emphasized.

http://www.uv.es/psicologica/articulos1.04/2-LILLO.pdf

I want to emphasize that I'm not picking these colors on the basis of some abstract desire for even use of the color wheel. I've made no such attempt. I selected colors I like and find useful and avoided a good chunk of colors (pinks) that I just don't think are that commonly needed.

tink pink?
nail shlaq

Yes nails, hmm. Maybe I should do a specific set for nail polish colors. You don't need all the low-gloss versions for that.

See, each time I pick another color, I have 7 shaders in that color to distribute in each set. The two sets are HUGE.

A very nice selection of colours there, I think, BB

I wondered if there should be an off-white category. Notice how many off-whites are represented in the orange (O) group. These subtle variations just seemed necessary to me.

There is a very strong representation of red-orange-yellow, because it seemed to me that you need more tiny variations here than in the blue-magenta area.

In the back is Super Gloss, front is Candy Satin Flame.

Left to right is Amber, Insignia, and Ochre - three yellows.

They are almost indistinguishable in Super Gloss, but in Candy Satin Flame they are really different. I think all three are needed in Candy paint, but it seems wasteful in Super Gloss. On the other hand, I don't want to deal with a different set of 100 colors for each of the 14 shaders.

And there will be more over time. I anticipate somewhere around 30 more important glossy-style shaders. I'm hoping to use the same BB100 colors for all.

This is why I'm struggling so badly - afraid to ship now in fear that I make the BB100 colors not so great for the shaders coming down the road.

Possibly one or two more off-whites on the extremities of the green and blue groups?

Not sure if off-white needs a separate group per se, or if the above is maybe sufficient?