On 01/05/2024 16:05, Bald Eagle wrote:

> When I try it with that last peach color, using if(EvalPigmentColor =
> ExcelByteColor/255), it doesn't work.

ok, ok, I understand better the problem.

I quickly coded a test. The result (of little interest) is attached, but
I think the problem lies in the precision/tolerance of the calculations.


I defined the pigment like this (but you know this) :

#declare pigmentSize = 5;
#declare myPigment = pigment {
 image_map {
  png "excel rgb colors"
  map_type 0
  interpolate 2
  }
 scale pigmentSize
 }


The purpose of the test is to give a greater height for pixels whose
color is peach. Several tries and it didn't work.



I created this macro, which compares the source color with the chosen
color, introducing a "tolerance" variable :

#macro CheckColor(thisCol, targetCol, tol)
 ((abs(thisCol.red*255-targetCol.red)<=tol) &
  (abs(thisCol.green*255-targetCol.green)<=tol) &
  (abs(thisCol.blue*255-targetCol.blue)<=tol) )
#end


Two variables:
#declare TargetColor = rgb <248, 203, 173>; // peach color
#declare Tolerance = 16; // this parameter is very very sensitive



In the image constitution, I retrieve the color of the source image:
 #declare myRGB = eval_pigment(myPigment, <xIndex, zIndex, 0>);


If the color is close to the one defined, I make a higher box:
 box {
  <2*xIndex-steep, 0, 2*zIndex-steep>, <2*xIndex + steep,
0.05*(CheckColor(myRGB, TargetColor ,Tolerance)?10:1), 2*zIndex + steep>
 pigment { color myRGB }
 }



This is where the value of the tolerance variable is important !
With value lower than 16 (about 6%) here, there's no higher box.
The code looks bad :(


This "large" tolerance value causes artifacts to appear elsewhere in the
image.



Maybe it's the wrong way...
Can any of this help you?



-- 
Kurtz le pirate
Compagnie de la Banquise

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'be.png' (163 KB)

Preview of image 'be.png'