 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why can't I render my image, (1450x1024), and then change to a
different <read: much higher> res, and then use the internal drag in
the render window (winPoV), to produce my close-up images? Will this
work, and can I do this? It seems so much easier if allowed.
~Steve~
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4168308e$1@news.povray.org...
> Why can't I render my image, (1450x1024), and then change to a
> different <read: much higher> res, and then use the internal drag in
> the render window (winPoV), to produce my close-up images? Will this
> work, and can I do this? It seems so much easier if allowed.
You can obviously do that if you want (the rules just state what you have to
provide, how you do that is up to you), it's just that declaring the area
using the mouse isn't very precise. In any case, if speed isn't an issue,
you can render an area big enough using the manual way and then crop out the
area to get the detail part in an editing program. In fact that's what I'd
do if I were participating (I'm doing a lot of detail views, and I always
spend some time deciding on the exact area). Be sure to remember the pixel
co-ordinates though, as these are required in the submission form.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:416846b7@news.povray.org...
>
> 4168308e$1@news.povray.org...
> > Why can't I render my image, (1450x1024), and then change to a
> > different <read: much higher> res, and then use the internal drag
in
> > the render window (winPoV), to produce my close-up images? Will
this
> > work, and can I do this? It seems so much easier if allowed.
>
> You can obviously do that if you want (the rules just state what you
have to
> provide, how you do that is up to you), it's just that declaring the
area
> using the mouse isn't very precise. In any case, if speed isn't an
issue,
> you can render an area big enough using the manual way and then crop
out the
> area to get the detail part in an editing program. In fact that's
what I'd
> do if I were participating (I'm doing a lot of detail views, and I
always
> spend some time deciding on the exact area). Be sure to remember the
pixel
> co-ordinates though, as these are required in the submission form.
Thank you very much Gilles, I'll give it some thought and practice
before I continue.
~Steve~
>
> G.
>
>
> --
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
>
>
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Why can't I render my image, (1450x1024), and then change to a
> different <read: much higher> res, and then use the internal drag in
> the render window (winPoV), to produce my close-up images? Will this
> work, and can I do this? It seems so much easier if allowed.
What I don't get: The samples on http://www.povcomp.com/samples/ intend to
show that scene elements at all scales have details.
I cannot evaluate a scene file >99 megabytes - a million primitives -
without memory exhaustion.
So either those plants, dragonflies, and tree leaves are the only scene
elements with small details, and the backgrounds use more textures than real
plant surfaces, or the POVray team rendered their sample with some system
more powerful than my puny 2-year old DELL notebook running WinXP.
Should I figure out how to use POVcyg instead of PVengine?
--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phlip" <phl### [at] yahoo com> wrote in message
news:41695dfe@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> > Why can't I render my image, (1450x1024), and then change to a
> > different <read: much higher> res, and then use the internal drag
in
> > the render window (winPoV), to produce my close-up images? Will
this
> > work, and can I do this? It seems so much easier if allowed.
>
> What I don't get: The samples on http://www.povcomp.com/samples/
intend to
> show that scene elements at all scales have details.
And indeed they do. The dragonfly close-up is a great image in its
own right. The tree close-up though, leaves a lot to be desired for
me. No pun intended. (Apologies Gilles, looks great from a distance).
;)
>
> I cannot evaluate a scene file >99 megabytes - a million
primitives -
> without memory exhaustion.
I sympathise. I usually use a basic graphics program called
PhotoDeluxe(v2.0), to convert to <whatever> format, but even I had
trouble with this as my .bmp was around 87Mb's.
>
> So either those plants, dragonflies, and tree leaves are the only
scene
> elements with small details, and the backgrounds use more textures
than real
> plant surfaces, or the POVray team rendered their sample with some
system
> more powerful than my puny 2-year old DELL notebook running WinXP.
Someone's playing with the prize... ;)
>
> Should I figure out how to use POVcyg instead of PVengine?
I'm sorry, can't help with this. Good luck.
~Steve~
>
> --
> Phlip
>
http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces
>
>
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
41695dfe@news.povray.org...
> So either those plants, dragonflies, and tree leaves are the only scene
> elements with small details, and the backgrounds use more textures than
> real
> plant surfaces, or the POVray team rendered their sample with some system
> more powerful than my puny 2-year old DELL notebook running WinXP.
This image was rendered on a 2-year old DELL notebook running WinXP...
http://www.oyonale.com/ressources/english/mkofdark1.htm
In this image, most of the elements are meshes. In POV-Ray, meshes differ
from other primitives when it comes to memory use: while a copy of a CSG
construct will double the memory use, a copy of a mesh only uses a small
memory pointer. That way it's possible to load thousands of instances of the
same mesh without using much more memory than for the first copy. This is
extremely practical for these kind of scenes.
I'd say that managing the resources to create a work that is large enough
for other purposes than simple screen viewing (i.e. magazine prints, CD
covers, art shows etc.) is part of the POVCOMP excercise...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
41696e8c@news.povray.org...
> And indeed they do. The dragonfly close-up is a great image in its
> own right. The tree close-up though, leaves a lot to be desired for
> me. No pun intended. (Apologies Gilles, looks great from a distance).
> ;)
In fact, I chose this close-up deliberately to show that the detail images
didn't need to be perfect by themselves. And yes, this tree really sucks in
close-up, and it's already a 70-Mb mesh...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:41698d4f@news.povray.org...
> 41696e8c@news.povray.org...
>
> > And indeed they do. The dragonfly close-up is a great image in
its
> > own right. The tree close-up though, leaves a lot to be desired
for
> > me. No pun intended. (Apologies Gilles, looks great from a
distance).
> > ;)
>
> In fact, I chose this close-up deliberately to show that the detail
images
> didn't need to be perfect by themselves. And yes, this tree really
sucks in
> close-up, and it's already a 70-Mb mesh...
You should, (will), see my detailed images, much worse than yours
my friend...
I thought 'smooth' meant 'smooth' until this exercise... Not so.
Oh well...
~Steve~
>
> G.
>
>
> --
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
>
>
>
>
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
