Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I need a bit of help. I made a depth_map of a Poser head (see attached)
> and thought that using it in the Rockhead code would be straightforward.
> It is, except that the face remains flat with hardly a hint of features.

Hi, Thomas.

I've been testing out your code (which is very cool, by the way), and the only
problem seems to be with the depth-map image itself ("mapping_test".) The facial
features apparently do not have enough contrast, from dark to light. I took your
image and toyed with it in Photoshop-- adding some simple, darker 'test
features' to the face-- and they successfully showed up on your isosurface.  If
it helps, I'll try to upload my test image here, so you can plug it into
your code, to see the difference. (It's a jpeg image, with a gamma of 2.2.)

By the way (and a bit off-topic): I'm currently running one of Clipka's
'development builds' (not the latest one, unfortunately), and I noticed that, in
your code, I could substitute "MAPPING_TEST" for "mapping test" (i.e., all
capital letters), even though your image's name wasn't written that way-- but
your .png image still loaded successfully, without a fatal error(!) That came as
a big surprise to me; up until now, I was sure that things like image_map names
(in an SDL scene) had to be spelled *exactly* like the image itself, or the
scene wouldn't run. I don't know if this is a new 'feature', or if it's just a
temporary glitch in my particular development build.

(I discovered this quirk by chance; your code had a small typo in the image_map
entry, that didn't quite match your .png image's actual name. But it rendered
successfully anyway!)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mapping_test_2_for_thomas.jpg' (68 KB)

Preview of image 'mapping_test_2_for_thomas.jpg'

Something I forgot to mention (not critical, just an observation):

When I rotate your isosurface (about +45-degrees around y, using the typical
'left-hand rule'), I notice what looks like a small smooth spherical shape
protruding from the center. I was wondering what that is, or what's producing
it.

Post a reply to this message

On 16-5-2016 10:16, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/05/2016 09:32, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> I need a bit of help. I made a depth_map of a Poser head (see attached) and thought
that using it in the Rockhead code would be straightforward. It is, except that the
face remains flat with hardly a hint of features. I believe there is nothing wrong
with the depth_map
>> itself, so how can I improve on this? Here is the basic code used:
>> ================================
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> If it can help... look at attached scene
>
> then compare with your scene. (and please next time, give me camera & light sources
too)
>

Like Kenneth said, the contrast of the depth_map is too small. I had 
been thinking about that but am not sure about what the best way to go 
would be to achieve that.

Otherwise yes, Sam's code shows the map on both opposite sides of the 
isosurface.

Shall give camera and light next time. Personally, I always prefer to 
put the code to test into my own generalised scene.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 16-5-2016 12:26, Kenneth wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> I need a bit of help. I made a depth_map of a Poser head (see attached)
>> and thought that using it in the Rockhead code would be straightforward.
>> It is, except that the face remains flat with hardly a hint of features.
>
> Hi, Thomas.
>
> I've been testing out your code (which is very cool, by the way), and the only
> problem seems to be with the depth-map image itself ("mapping_test".) The facial
> features apparently do not have enough contrast, from dark to light. I took your
> image and toyed with it in Photoshop-- adding some simple, darker 'test
> features' to the face-- and they successfully showed up on your isosurface.  If
> it helps, I'll try to upload my test image here, so you can plug it into
> your code, to see the difference. (It's a jpeg image, with a gamma of 2.2.)

Thanks Kenneth. I indeed suspected the contrast of the depth_map and 
wondered how I could best improve that. I tried first to vary the 
pigment_map {} range with different shade values of grey; then I used 
the Gimp to see if I could improve the contrast but neither was good 
enough. Clearly the image needs contrast from the start or like you did. 
Sam's original map was better and with better results (see attachments). 
I had hoped to get away with mine but have to invent some clever tricks 
apparently. I think I am going to put the image through a more thorough 
laundering in Gimp ;-)

>
> By the way (and a bit off-topic): I'm currently running one of Clipka's
> 'development builds' (not the latest one, unfortunately), and I noticed that, in
> your code, I could substitute "MAPPING_TEST" for "mapping test" (i.e., all
> capital letters), even though your image's name wasn't written that way-- but
> your .png image still loaded successfully, without a fatal error(!) That came as
> a big surprise to me; up until now, I was sure that things like image_map names
> (in an SDL scene) had to be spelled *exactly* like the image itself, or the
> scene wouldn't run. I don't know if this is a new 'feature', or if it's just a
> temporary glitch in my particular development build.

Good to know. I thought names had to be consistent especially with 
capitals.

>
> (I discovered this quirk by chance; your code had a small typo in the image_map
> entry, that didn't quite match your .png image's actual name. But it rendered
> successfully anyway!)

Oh? I don't see any difference between the two names on my side.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sb_rockhead1.png' (192 KB) Download 'rockman.png' (107 KB)

Preview of image 'sb_rockhead1.png'

Preview of image 'rockman.png'

> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> I need a bit of help. I made a depth_map of a Poser head (see attached)
>> and thought that using it in the Rockhead code would be straightforward.
>> It is, except that the face remains flat with hardly a hint of features.
>
> Hi, Thomas.
>
> I've been testing out your code (which is very cool, by the way), and the only
> problem seems to be with the depth-map image itself ("mapping_test".) The facial
> features apparently do not have enough contrast, from dark to light. I took your
> image and toyed with it in Photoshop-- adding some simple, darker 'test
> features' to the face-- and they successfully showed up on your isosurface.  If
> it helps, I'll try to upload my test image here, so you can plug it into
> your code, to see the difference. (It's a jpeg image, with a gamma of 2.2.)
>
> By the way (and a bit off-topic): I'm currently running one of Clipka's
> 'development builds' (not the latest one, unfortunately), and I noticed that, in
> your code, I could substitute "MAPPING_TEST" for "mapping test" (i.e., all
> capital letters), even though your image's name wasn't written that way-- but
> your .png image still loaded successfully, without a fatal error(!) That came as
> a big surprise to me; up until now, I was sure that things like image_map names
> (in an SDL scene) had to be spelled *exactly* like the image itself, or the
> scene wouldn't run. I don't know if this is a new 'feature', or if it's just a
> temporary glitch in my particular development build.
>
> (I discovered this quirk by chance; your code had a small typo in the image_map
> entry, that didn't quite match your .png image's actual name. But it rendered
> successfully anyway!)
>

If you are under Windows, file paths, including files names, are always 
case insencitive.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>
> If you are under Windows, file paths, including files names, are always
> case insencitive.
>

Really?! That is something I didn't know. In all my years of using POV-Ray on
Windows, I've always been extremely careful to spell file names exactly as they
should be-- when I didn't have to be so precise, apparently! Strange that I've
never noticed that before.

Thanks!

Actually, I think that it's going to be hard for me to get used to this 'new'
idea (new to me!)-- trying to change about 15 years' worth of old habits. Ha!

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 16-5-2016 12:26, Kenneth wrote:

> >
> > (I discovered this quirk by chance; your code had a small typo in the image_map
> > entry, that didn't quite match your .png image's actual name. But it rendered
> > successfully anyway!)
>
> Oh? I don't see any difference between the two names on my side.
>

Hmm, that's strange. On my end (using Firefox as a browser), here's what I
see...

(your code snippet)
image_map {
                png"Mapping_test.png" gamma 1.0 interpolate 2
              }

Attachments:
download "mapping_test.png" (48 KB)

.... and the .png file is saved on my system as "mapping_test"

About the depth map: I assume that you created it in POV-Ray (using a
white-to-black color_map laid over the model in +z?) Perhaps you could run TWO
renders, one for just the face, and one for the areas behind the face (ears,
neck, etc.), using some kind of (precise!) trick with *different* color_maps,
plus appropriate inner/outer transparency for each render (to separate the
areas.) Then combine them in GIMP.

OR, you could separate your original depth-map image into two parts with a
precise mask, and boost the contrast of just the face.

I can't say for sure if either method would actually produce a 'correct'
isosurface face shape, but it might be worth a try.  It's kind of like trying to
make a face using a height_field and a depth-map; I've tried doing that, with
not-very-good results. The image_map artwork has to be made *just so*, and bears
little resemblance to an actual face!

Post a reply to this message

> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are under Windows, file paths, including files names, are always
>> case insencitive.
>>
>
> Really?! That is something I didn't know. In all my years of using POV-Ray on
> Windows, I've always been extremely careful to spell file names exactly as they
> should be-- when I didn't have to be so precise, apparently! Strange that I've
> never noticed that before.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Actually, I think that it's going to be hard for me to get used to this 'new'
> idea (new to me!)-- trying to change about 15 years' worth of old habits. Ha!
>
>

It's a leftover from DOS 1.0. DOS 0.1 alpha to DOS 7.xx, and Windows 1.0 
to Windows 10, have always been case insencitive. But, who know, maybe 
in some future time Windows could become case sencitive...
Also, the infamous backslash "\" comes from the bad decision of using 
the forward slash for switches and command lines options that where not 
to be set ON/Off (+ -) but activated by presence, like dir /w. They also 
used the pipe "|" in some cases for no real reasons.

If you are on Unix/Linux, then the paths ARE case sencitives. Probably 
on MacOS to. So, it's may be a good habit to have.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 16-5-2016 23:25, Alain wrote:

>> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you are under Windows, file paths, including files names, are always
>>> case insencitive.
>>>
>>
>> Really?! That is something I didn't know. In all my years of using
>> POV-Ray on
>> Windows, I've always been extremely careful to spell file names
>> exactly as they
>> should be-- when I didn't have to be so precise, apparently! Strange
>> that I've
>> never noticed that before.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Actually, I think that it's going to be hard for me to get used to
>> this 'new'
>> idea (new to me!)-- trying to change about 15 years' worth of old
>> habits. Ha!
>>
>>
>
> It's a leftover from DOS 1.0. DOS 0.1 alpha to DOS 7.xx, and Windows 1.0
> to Windows 10, have always been case insencitive. But, who know, maybe
> in some future time Windows could become case sencitive...
> Also, the infamous backslash "\" comes from the bad decision of using
> the forward slash for switches and command lines options that where not
> to be set ON/Off (+ -) but activated by presence, like dir /w. They also
> used the pipe "|" in some cases for no real reasons.
>

Like Kenneth, I have never been aware of that either! It won't change my 
habit though ;-)

The use of "|" in e.g. #if (x>10 | z<=20) is legitimate though? What 
other, invalid, use are you talking of?


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 16-5-2016 23:03, Kenneth wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 16-5-2016 12:26, Kenneth wrote:
>
>>>
>>> (I discovered this quirk by chance; your code had a small typo in the image_map
>>> entry, that didn't quite match your .png image's actual name. But it rendered
>>> successfully anyway!)
>>
>> Oh? I don't see any difference between the two names on my side.
>>
>
> Hmm, that's strange. On my end (using Firefox as a browser), here's what I
> see...
>
> (your code snippet)
> image_map {
>                  png"Mapping_test.png" gamma 1.0 interpolate 2
>                }
>
> Attachments:
> download "mapping_test.png" (48 KB)
>
> .... and the .png file is saved on my system as "mapping_test"

Strange. Using Firefox myself, I have no differences made with the 
downloads. They are exactly conform the originals.

>
> About the depth map: I assume that you created it in POV-Ray (using a
> white-to-black color_map laid over the model in +z?) Perhaps you could run TWO
> renders, one for just the face, and one for the areas behind the face (ears,
> neck, etc.), using some kind of (precise!) trick with *different* color_maps,
> plus appropriate inner/outer transparency for each render (to separate the
> areas.) Then combine them in GIMP.

Yes, That may be an interesting experiment to do.

>
> OR, you could separate your original depth-map image into two parts with a
> precise mask, and boost the contrast of just the face.

I tried that with no particular success.

>
> I can't say for sure if either method would actually produce a 'correct'
> isosurface face shape, but it might be worth a try.  It's kind of like trying to
> make a face using a height_field and a depth-map; I've tried doing that, with
> not-very-good results. The image_map artwork has to be made *just so*, and bears
> little resemblance to an actual face!

I have to agree with you on that. I had hoped for a straightforward use 
of a depth map but it is not as simple as that.

A third option I might try is to scale the head excessively in the z 
direction before making the depth map. But even then subtle details like 
the eyes may get lost.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message