On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:08:48 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > That's possible and already tested with my post_process 
> > implementation (if you wish I can send sample image to p.b.i but its 
> > content seems obvious). It is possible with following script.
>
> You seem to miss the point completely. I'm not talking about a post 
> process feature, isn't that obvious?

No. You have described some functionality you dream about and I showed you how
it could be possible with my patch.

> >   global_settings{
> >     post_process{
> >       // functions for four channels of output
> >       function{f_avg(f_output_red(x,y),back_Pig(x,y,0).x,f_output_alpha(x,y))}
> >       function{f_avg(f_output_green(x,y),back_Pig(x,y,0).y,f_output_alpha(x,y))}
> >       function{f_avg(f_output_blue(x,y),back_Pig(x,y,0).z,f_output_alpha(x,y))}
> >       function{0}
> >       save_file "with_background.png"
> >     }
> >   }
>
> Sorry, but yuck. This is something that really needs vector functions, 
> and IMO should wait until they are available because it will need to be 
> redesigned and rewritten when they are here.

So do you want me to remove it from from MegaPOV 1.1 ? Do you prefer the
previous much more limited post_processing ? Or do you want to deliver vector
functions within a month ? I do not understand your intentions. I do not think
community want to wait years for post processing.

> > Please note that you have more control in this implementation than in your
> > script becouse you can define differend behaviour for each channel.
>
> Wrong. My script only handled all channels at once because that was all 
> that was needed. It could easily handle channels separately.

Can you deliver sources for inclusion in compilation ?

> > I hope you like this new post_processing.
>
> Sorry, I don't. Great improvement in functionality, but extreme loss in 
> useability and efficiency. As I said, this really, really needs vector 
> functions. Using n-tuples of functions makes things far more complex 
> than necessary, and requires recomputing things that could be done once. 
> your "one-pass" version calls camb_Pig() 6 times and back_Pig() 3 times 
> per pixel, when once each would do. It also takes three functions whcih 
> have only 2 characters that change, when one function of about the same 
> length would do.

I completly understand your point here but the problem is that I do not have
vector functions available. And I can hardly see when they will be available.
But once the sources will be available you can improve it, I will be happy about
that.

ABX

Post a reply to this message