 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If DTA doesn't work, you might try IrfanView
http://www.irfanview.com
It's a small program with very nice batch-processing capabilities.
(Disclaimer: I am not in any way involved with IrfanView -- I just find it
handy.)
- Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------
"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the
paperwork is overwhelming."
- Wernher Von Braun, rocketry pioneer
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de> wrote in message
news:3bf7c864@news.povray.org...
> In article <3bf7c433$1@news.povray.org> , "Mahalis"
<don### [at] fakeycom>
> wrote:
>
> > I do, but what I'm doing is converting hundreds of images in an
animation; I
> > was looking for a workaround for this.
>
> Lots of programs can convert whole directories to a specific format.
>
> Thorsten
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
> e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
>
> Don't hold your breath. Why support and ancient outdated antiquated
> inferior image format?
Because Agent is fun to play with and it's stuck at 2.0 for like 5 years
now... IOWs, antiquated.
I would like to see POV have more diversity in output because sometimes
I -want- to have chunky colors, but I get the idea that they don't want
that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:29:25 -0500, Mahalis wrote:
> Dang. I guess that goes on the *wish list* for POV 4...
JPEG output is more likely than GIF output, and it won't happen either.
As it happens, these are both for the same reason: neither format supports
true, lossless color, and we don't want the support headaches from people
who output to low-quality JPEG or GIF and then come asking why their 37-day
render produced this banded, artifacted, crappy image.
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> I would like to see POV have more diversity in output because sometimes
> I -want- to have chunky colors, but I get the idea that they don't want
> that.
No need to develop ideas on the subject. They will admit it openly.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
> Actually, I'm not intending to make an animated GIF out of the images.
> There's a fairly new bit of software called Microsoft Agent- perhaps you've
> seen it as the Office Assistant in MS Word- and they have also released a
> software that lets you build your own characters. Unfortunately, space
> requirements dictate that the program only accepts 256 color images. I'm
> downloading DTA right now; it may be what I'm looking for.
In general, things like that need all the images to share the same palette of
256. Check to is if that is so for what you need? If so, it's best to render
all the frames, calculate an optimal palette for the whole series, then convert
them to 8-bit.
--
Jon A. Cruz
http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3BF87412.4D329C7B@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> > I would like to see POV have more diversity in output because
sometimes
> > I -want- to have chunky colors, but I get the idea that they don't want
> > that.
>
> No need to develop ideas on the subject. They will admit it openly.
Poor communication on my part, "get" the idea, as in "understand", not
as in "receive".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: No, POV-Ray does not and will not *ever* support output to a palette based
: image format for exactly the same reason as there is no support for any
: other lossy output image format. No putting it on wish-lists and no number
: of user requests will change the POV-Team policy not to support lossy output
: image formats of any kind.
I personally support this principle.
(Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> we don't want the support headaches from people
> who output to low-quality JPEG or GIF and then come asking why their 37-day
> render produced this banded, artifacted, crappy image.
Anyone remember those questions about banded images on 15 or
16 bit displays :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2001 03:50:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> (Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
>lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
>component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
>I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
Kari wouldn't call this --^ "nitpicking" :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On 19 Nov 2001 03:50:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> > (Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
> >lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
> >component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
> >I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
>
> Kari wouldn't call this --^ "nitpicking" :)
Yes, for advanced users 24-bits isn't enough :)
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/room3_24.png
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
