Hello everyone. Today I made a scene file which takes an image and 
applies a 'bloom' effect to the bright parts. The example attached is a 
bit overdone to show the results. I can control which values in the 
image are active.

I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I 
wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....

Happy raytracing~

-Sam Benge

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'luminous_bloom3.jpg' (80 KB)

Preview of image 'luminous_bloom3.jpg'

Incredible! As with other IRTC images it doesn't look raytraced, it looks as a
photograph!

--
- Nicolas Alvarez
nicoalvar0 [at] hotmail [dot] com




news:40D### [at] hotmailcom...
> Hello everyone. Today I made a scene file which takes an image and
> applies a 'bloom' effect to the bright parts. The example attached is a
> bit overdone to show the results. I can control which values in the
> image are active.
>
> I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....
>
> Happy raytracing~
>
> -Sam Benge
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

> I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....


I think if it's all done in the renderer, it's OK.

Nice effect. It makes the image look like a photo.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:

> Hello everyone. Today I made a scene file which takes an image and 
> applies a 'bloom' effect to the bright parts. The example attached is a 
> bit overdone to show the results. I can control which values in the 
> image are active.
> 
> I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I 
> wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....
> 
> Happy raytracing~

Very nice effect! I don't think anyone would complain about it 
technically as long as it is 100% POV. However for an IRTC entry you 
might find some of the more purist arguing that the effect looks too 
much like the effects that are used by 3D MAX artists. I personally 
don't feel this way but I can see others might.

Post a reply to this message

"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40D### [at] hotmailcom...
> Hello everyone. Today I made a scene file which takes an image and
> applies a 'bloom' effect to the bright parts. The example attached is a
> bit overdone to show the results. I can control which values in the
> image are active.

It really is a nice effect, Samuel.  In fact, most of the things you show
here amaze me.   You're certainly working at a level of understanding which
far surpasses my own.

Incredible work!  :-)

>
> I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....
>

Only if it can be done in one step.  It sounds like it's a 2 part process
(render scene then take image and add bloom effect), which could disqualify
it, since it's done through the renderer.

However, somewhere deep in the rules documentation, it says that post
processing is essentially ok if it applies to the whole image (i.e. it's ok
to blur, gamma correct, etc.), in which case it would be ok.  But...  From
having had this discussion once before, not everyone is aware of that in the
rules FAQ, and so to some voters, any post-processing may get you into
trouble.  The last time I remember being involved in a rules discussion, I
think someone said (maybe it was me) to state the rule in your accompanying
text file with a referencing URL as to why your post processing technique is
valid.

It bothers me when people use the rules too literally, though.  I think the
general idea is simply not to add new elements to your image, nor to use
post-processing to touch-up a bad rendering job, but others may disagree.  I
have thought that unless you're a panel judge, you should just vote on the
image "as is" and let the panel judges decide if it's a violation or not,
but that opens up a whole new can-o-worms.

Now having said all of that, I'll say that I actually hate IRTC
post-processing rule discussions...  bleh

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:40D### [at] hotmailcom...
<snip>
> > I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> > wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....
> >
>
> Only if it can be done in one step.  It sounds like it's a 2 part process
> (render scene then take image and add bloom effect), which could disqualify
> it, since it's done through the renderer.
>

That's pretty much my take on it also.  That 2nd step is getting into pretty
gray territory rulewise.  There have been in-renderer effects used in the
IRTC in the past and they have sometimes not been well received. On the
other hand, sometimes they are... it probably all depends on which crowd
shows up for the voting ;-)


> However, somewhere deep in the rules documentation, it says that post
> processing is essentially ok if it applies to the whole image (i.e. it's ok
> to blur, gamma correct, etc.), in which case it would be ok.

I think it says that while gamma correcting is ok, blur is not. At least it
specifically says post processed motion blur is not.  My reading of that
part of the rules is that it's ok to use the three basic processes that are
commonly applied to any image (brightness, contrast & gamma), but that
effect filters such as blur or halo are not.

And even that's iffey, since I could conceivably take a mediocre render and
turn it into a completely different and dynamic abstract by applying 175%
contrast...

RG

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:

> Hello everyone. Today I made a scene file which takes an image and
> applies a 'bloom' effect to the bright parts. The example attached is a
> bit overdone to show the results. I can control which values in the
> image are active.
> 
> I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....
> 
> Happy raytracing~
> 
> -Sam Benge

WOW Sam! Looks just like in the mornings when I wake up after a long night
of tracing - everything too bright and hurting.

VERY nice
-- 
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician
Polar Design Solutions

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....



Its not an postprocessing step, because it is done within Povray. Its a
Povray render generated in two steps and as such you can use it in the
IRTC.
I by myself used "postprocessing" within Povray several times in my entries.

By the way, nice effect!


Norbert Kern

Post a reply to this message

news: web.40dbdfb25ac3ed2ae08477ec0@news.povray.org...
> Samuel Benge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> > I think that this technique is probably okay to use in the IRTC, but I
> > wonder if it would be considered a post-processing step or not....
>
>
>
> Its not an postprocessing step, because it is done within Povray. Its a
> Povray render generated in two steps and as such you can use it in the
> IRTC.
> I by myself used "postprocessing" within Povray several times in my
entries.
>
> By the way, nice effect!
>
Yes nice effect
I am not against some ligth postprocessing (as in this case).
I think anyway that this is posprocessing because it is applied on a 2d
image and not in a 3d scene


Marc

Post a reply to this message

"Marc Jacquier" <nos### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:

> I think anyway that this is posprocessing because it is applied on a 2d
> image and not in a 3d scene

What, if you make an animation with two images - first the actual render,
then afterwards the "postprocessing" using the first frame?
This would be similar to the postprocessing steps in the old Megapov until
MP 0.7 (of course there was no such effect). There are several IRTC entries
with this kind of postprocessing and it was certainly allowed.

Norbert Kern

Post a reply to this message