 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's a toy with grass and water I made in Blender and exported to Povray.
Here's the original. It doesn't look too bad.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'original.jpg' (213 KB)
Preview of image 'original.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's a the same image with some post-processing:
* Changing color curves a bit
* chromatic aberration/lens distortion
* noise
* vignetting
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'post.jpg' (379 KB)
Preview of image 'post.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Here's a the same image with some post-processing:
>
>
> * Changing color curves a bit
> * chromatic aberration/lens distortion
> * noise
> * vignetting
Hi,
nicely done - my daughter (12) was excited.
First image looks like plastic, second seems real.
You know this sources?
- http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=cdpp
- http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2005-10-31/elements.jpg
we should use them more often...
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-online de> wrote:
> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Here's a the same image with some post-processing:
> >
> >
> > * Changing color curves a bit
> > * chromatic aberration/lens distortion
> > * noise
> > * vignetting
>
> Hi,
> nicely done - my daughter (12) was excited.
> First image looks like plastic, second seems real.
>
> You know this sources?
>
> - http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=cdpp
> - http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2005-10-31/elements.jpg
>
> we should use them more often...
>
> Norbert
Thanks! I just use GIMP, since it's a lot easier to see what the outcomes are
going to be without committing anything.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Here's a the same image with some post-processing:
That's a really excellent before-and-after example-- and it shows how
'real-world' defects can make a render look natural rather than 'unnaturally'
pristine.
Old movies have a particular 'look'-- much of which comes from the film grain:
sort of like a small bit of random noise (with 24 or 25 such images flashing by
in one second.)
Old Technicolor movie prints-- ones that have been well-preserved-- are another
interesting case. The original scene was photographed onto three *fine*-grain
black-and-white film strips, then those were used to imprint colored dyes onto
the final projection print. Those prints have a VERY smooth, almost grainless
look-- but there was a tiny bit of color 'bleed' between the dyes, resulting in
a kind of pleasingly soft appearance. (And sometimes the three films were
slightly mis-registered, resulting in colored fringes around objects.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2018 11:05 AM, jhu wrote:
> Here's a toy with grass and water I made in Blender and exported to Povray.
> Here's the original. It doesn't look too bad.
>
Very nice! The Blender exporter seems pretty mature at this point.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2/11/2018 11:05 AM, jhu wrote:
> > Here's a toy with grass and water I made in Blender and exported to Povray.
> > Here's the original. It doesn't look too bad.
> >
>
> Very nice! The Blender exporter seems pretty mature at this point.
>
>
> Mike
Object conversion works pretty well. Material conversion, on the other hand, is
nearly non-existant (ie if you made materials for Blender Cycles, you'll have to
redo them for Povray).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Here's a the same image with some post-processing:
>
> That's a really excellent before-and-after example-- and it shows how
> 'real-world' defects can make a render look natural rather than 'unnaturally'
> pristine.
>
> Old movies have a particular 'look'-- much of which comes from the film grain:
> sort of like a small bit of random noise (with 24 or 25 such images flashing by
> in one second.)
>
That's a case where crand and jitter can be used in an animation.
I wonder, given that crand darken random pixels, what if one use
something like "crand -0.1" on a dark area. Will it lighten random
pixels instead?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/02/2018 05:13, jhu wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 2/11/2018 11:05 AM, jhu wrote:
>>> Here's a toy with grass and water I made in Blender and exported to Povray.
>>> Here's the original. It doesn't look too bad.
>>>
>>
>> Very nice! The Blender exporter seems pretty mature at this point.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Object conversion works pretty well. Material conversion, on the other hand, is
> nearly non-existant (ie if you made materials for Blender Cycles, you'll have to
> redo them for Povray).
>
It's not that bad if you use the internal renderer. I don't think the
"nodes" work in the exporter, though.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Here's a toy with grass and water I made in Blender and exported to Povray.
> Here's the original. It doesn't look too bad.
Nice! And you made it to Blenderartists Feature row! I also added it to the
POV-Ray group's gallery:
https://blenderartists.org/forum/group.php?discussionid=649&do=discuss
"Very nice! The Blender exporter seems pretty mature at this point."
>...We only need more users and developers now!
"Material conversion, on the other hand, is
nearly non-existant (ie if you made materials for Blender Cycles, you'll have to
redo them for Povray)."
> Request noted !
"It's not that bad if you use the internal renderer. I don't think the
"nodes" work in the exporter, though."
> Indeed it was built with Blender Internal conversion in mind.
Some very simple node material implemented by Lanuhum was supposed to work.
Please try to report bugs so that we can improve the nodes which is a
prerequisite to Cycles materials conversion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
