Btw, I really hope you will not get a low score because many of the voters
think you cheated. That would be very bad.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:

> BTW, in MegaPov 0.5, you will be able to use post-processed focal blur
> without damaging the anti-aliasing in the image.

Good news. These post-processing open a "realm of new opportunities" as they
say in commercials. This picture couldn't have been made without Megapov, and
I hope that it will be possible to render it in POV 3.5.
About the antialiasing, it was not such a problem here : in fact the bad
antialiasing could have been solved by using more demanding aa parameters.  I
had more trouble with the fact that focal blur is not totally compatible with
the "continue trace" option, since that means that the image had to be
rendered in one pass, or in several determined ones, but could not be aborted
without losing part of the blurring info. Right now, I'm not sure about
rendering a larger version: should I render smaller parts and glue them
together at the end, or should I wait for Megapov 0.5 and be able to abort and
resume the trace whenever I need it ?
G.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Btw, I really hope you will not get a low score because many of the voters
> think you cheated. That would be very bad.

This is unlikely to happen, since that the IRTC admins investigated the claims
and wrote to the people who complained that the picture was legit. One "proof"
of the image being touched-up was that the colour distribution of some parts of
the image was unusual for a povray picture. In fact, this may be due to the use
of semi-transparent, vertical planes. Now that the offending part of the scene
in available, I guess that those interested in this problem will be able to
check it out by themselves.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote...
> I
> had more trouble with the fact that focal blur is not totally compatible
with
> the "continue trace" option, since that means that the image had to be
> rendered in one pass, or in several determined ones, but could not be
aborted
> without losing part of the blurring info. Right now, I'm not sure about
> rendering a larger version: should I render smaller parts and glue them
> together at the end, or should I wait for Megapov 0.5 and be able to abort
and
> resume the trace whenever I need it ?

When 0.5 comes out (in a week or so, if all goes well), it will support
continued tracing with post-processing.  The problem with 0.4 is that the
post-process data file (postdata.tmp) is getting deleted when you stop the
render.  With 0.5, it will only get deleted when render has been completed.
In future versions, I hope to provide the user with even more control over
the post-process data file.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

> 
> For those interested, I just put some information here
> http://www.inapg.inra.fr/dsa/temp/makingof.htm
> about the techniques used in my IRTC "City" entry. These 9 pages contain
> more information than  the txt and zip file.
> In fact I had planned to put this on my website later this month (along
> with a Making of of my "Gardens" entry). However, I was informed by the
> IRTC that a few people complained that the my entry was a postprocessed
> composition of photographs and some of them went as far as to give
> evidence of this...  I'm not kidding ! The matter has been quickly
> solved, thanks to the IRTC admins, and is a big LOL, but anyway I'm
> putting this on line. Note that it is a temporary hosting until I move
> these pages to my website, so don't bookmark it.
> 
> From now, I'll add a big checkered plane and a very big reflective
> sphere in all my IRTC entries. Just kidding (this time).
> 
> G.

Merci Gilles ;-) I take my dictionary ! 

-- 
Martial !-)
mailto:Mar### [at] wanadoofr
http://martial.rameaux.free.fr

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 May 2000 16:55:21 +0200, Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:

>One "proof"
>of the image being touched-up was that the colour distribution of some parts of
>the image was unusual for a povray picture.

Haha..  *Most* POV-Ray pictures actually have an unusual colour
distribution to begin with (compared to reality or photographs.) I
wouldn't be surprised if your "unusual distribution" was simply the
somewhat rare look of a near-perfect rendering.    :)

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message