 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This was just an imitation experiment, but I think I got to fix the
shadows... I really can't remember what I changed, but after too much
tweaking, the strange shadows disappeared.
I added a bit of noise to the image to give it a more "photo" look.
Very simple, but pretty image, I think...
Any comment/suggestion is appreciated.
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'marblebig2.jpg' (88 KB)
Preview of image 'marblebig2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Honestly, I don't like the noise very much, I think it destroys the
simplicity of the image.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
>
> I added a bit of noise to the image to give it a more "photo" look.
I found that adding Gaussian noise individually to each channel
and twice as much to blue channel duplicated quite accurately
noise in a couple of 6000dpi slide scans. Blue channel is more noisy
in all imaging systems. I scale up the image, add noise, blur a little
to prevent noise aliasing, scale down and mix with original.
Was fresnel and conserve_energy used?
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:14:36 +0300, Kari Kivisalo
<pro### [at] luxlab com> wrote:
>I found that adding Gaussian noise individually to each channel
>and twice as much to blue channel duplicated quite accurately
>noise in a couple of 6000dpi slide scans. Blue channel is more noisy
>in all imaging systems. I scale up the image, add noise, blur a little
>to prevent noise aliasing, scale down and mix with original.
That sounds interesting, at least for simulating electronic scans and
digital camera images. Have you ever given any thought to simulating
film grain?
Later,
Glen
7no### [at] ezwvcom (Remove the numeral "7")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:23:42 -0500, "Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto"
<fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>This was just an imitation experiment, but I think I got to fix the
>shadows... I really can't remember what I changed, but after too much
>tweaking, the strange shadows disappeared.
>
>I added a bit of noise to the image to give it a more "photo" look.
I think the noise worked well for that purpose. Exactly how did you
add the noise to this image? I wonder if it could be done entirely
within POV-Ray?
Later,
Glen
7no### [at] ezwvcom (Remove the numeral "7")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry wrote:
>
> That sounds interesting, at least for simulating electronic scans and
> digital camera images. Have you ever given any thought to simulating
> film grain?
Hmm. Isn't the noise from the film grain? What I ment was that the grain
visible at 6000dpi looked very much like blurred Gaussian noise :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
news:RW0CPaS8E54q9I98Bwgw2VvSFWOG@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:23:42 -0500, "Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto"
> <fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> I think the noise worked well for that purpose. Exactly how did you
> add the noise to this image? I wonder if it could be done entirely
> within POV-Ray?
I'm glad you liked it. I added the noise using The Gimp, but I really don't
know if it can be done with POV... I doubt it.
Thanks Glen,
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Slime,
My newest post displays a weaker noise, and a noise-less versions. Do you
like them better?
Fernando.
"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message
news:3d025f70$1@news.povray.org...
> Honestly, I don't like the noise very much, I think it destroys the
> simplicity of the image.
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kari Kivisalo" <pro### [at] luxlabcom> wrote in message
news:3D0265AC.71BAD9AB@luxlab.com...
> Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
> >
> > I added a bit of noise to the image to give it a more "photo" look.
>
> I found that adding Gaussian noise individually to each channel
> and twice as much to blue channel duplicated quite accurately
> noise in a couple of 6000dpi slide scans. Blue channel is more noisy
> in all imaging systems. I scale up the image, add noise, blur a little
> to prevent noise aliasing, scale down and mix with original.
Hi Kari. In my next post, I make a noised version with your technique, I
think it is better. Thanks!
> Was fresnel and conserve_energy used?
No... Actually, I've never used them :-/ Would they help?
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
if you want the perfect photo use daguerreotype it still has noise but they
are atomic size instead of what is seen in regular film.
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> Glen Berry wrote:
> >
> > That sounds interesting, at least for simulating electronic scans and
> > digital camera images. Have you ever given any thought to simulating
> > film grain?
>
> Hmm. Isn't the noise from the film grain? What I ment was that the grain
> visible at 6000dpi looked very much like blurred Gaussian noise :)
>
> _____________
> Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
