Olaf Doschke <b2x### [at] strconv14de> wrote:
> Then you might also delete sections of the POV
> help about eg radiosity.

  I don't see why. The radiosity tutorials and reference are very
POV-Ray specific and can't be transferred to other programs.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
> "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
> might not actually mean what I wanted.

For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering" 
isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the 
above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that 
dress flatters you" are all compliments.

And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of 
focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture 
sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it 
just me?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
> > "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
> > might not actually mean what I wanted.
>
> For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering"
> isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the
> above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that
> dress flatters you" are all compliments.
>
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it
> just me?
>


Stephen said sooking up to Darren :-)



Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:


Actually, thinking about it, I usually hear it used with husband/wife 
type relationships. If it's derogatory, you'd say they're a "kiss-a$$".

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 06/12/2006 12:26:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Hmm, looking at the definition of "flattering" at webster.com (like
>> "to praise excessively especially from motives of self-interest"), it
>> might not actually mean what I wanted.

> For what it's worth, in all the native English I've spoken, "flattering" 
> isn't always derogatory. A "flatterer" is one who is doing what the 
> above definition says. But "being flattered" or "I'm flattered" or "that 
> dress flatters you" are all compliments.

> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of 
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture 
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it 
> just me?

"Flaterer" will be derogatory when acting to get favors or have ulterior, 
unsaid, motive. A cinsere flaterer don't try to extract any advantage, he may 
only be over entusiastic or more extroverted than most.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell 
happened to your bra and panties.

Post a reply to this message

Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 06/12/2006 09:41:
> Olaf Doschke <b2x### [at] strconv14de> wrote:
>> Then you might also delete sections of the POV
>> help about eg radiosity.

>   I don't see why. The radiosity tutorials and reference are very
> POV-Ray specific and can't be transferred to other programs.

It's not because some tip is broarer than POV-Ray that it can't be included in 
the tutorials. If it's a good tip or a usefull one, then including it should be 
encouraged.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Randall Sawyer <sra### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > That actually helps a lot.  A simply-worded tutorial with spectacular
> > results like that would be nice to see in the documentation of future
> > POV-Ray releases.
>
>   The problem I see is that this is a tutorial on scene design, not on
> using POV-Ray per se. In other words, it's a tutorial on how to compose
> a scene which looks cool, and the tricks can be used on any renderer,
> not just POV-Ray.
>   The tutorials in the POV-Ray documentation are (and IMO should be)
> about how to use POV-Ray itself and its features. Scene composition
> is largely irrelevant in that context.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Okay, but I still meant what I said.  I've gone through the tutorials in the
documentation.  I get the colors and textures and finishes kind of alright -
but not exactly what I want.  Sometimes I end up exporting the image to GIMP
to "get it right."

Perhaps tutorials on scene design could be an appendix.  Or, the
documentation could include links to scene design site(s).

Thanks again...

-Randall

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of 
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture 
> sometimes. Maybe just a bit would work out better.  Or, as I said, is it 
> just me?

  As I say in the tutorial, focal blur simulates a photograph taken
with a macro lens, and makes it look like the scene has been photographed
from very close. There are many photographs like that, and it's a nice
effect. I think in this kind of image it's ok, and adds to the depth and
realism.

  Of course in other situations it may be overused.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And, on topic, am I the only one that thinks most of the uses I see of
> focal blur are over-the-top? It's so distracting it ruins the picture
> sometimes.

In this case in particular, it's very realistic:  it depicts small objects
from up-close and real photographs at that distance also show similar focal
blur.  I know, though, some people prefer to see all sharp details in a CG
image rather than it being realistic, specially in stills...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> effect. I think in this kind of image it's ok, and adds to the depth and
> realism.

I'm not arguing that the effect is bad. I'm merely commenting that I 
find most POV images I've seen with focal blur seem to set too high an 
aperture. I find an image where almost everything is out of focus to be 
very distracting. *My* real-life macro camera is cheap, yet has superior 
depth of field when photographing things just an inch or two from the 
lens. A camera that can't get the entire subject of the photograph in 
decent focus is the wrong camera for the photograph. :-)

For example, taking scene8 and setting the aperture to 0.3 instead of 
0.75 gives a picture that I, personally, find much more appealing than 
either no focal blur or "excessive" focal blur. It demonstrates depth 
without making the interesting parts so blurry as to be unrecognisable. 
Of course, it's all subjective.  I just wondered if I was the only 
person who found most examples I've seen of focal blur apertures to be 
too large to be aesthetically appealing.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
     and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."

Post a reply to this message