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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

I guess so.  I personally find focal blur to be very aesthetically appealing
in itself:  it has a plastic beauty...

Post a reply to this message

First of all, call me yet another who liked the totorial Warp :)

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?

I've long groaned about photographers who like to use too much depth of
field un-necessarily (in my opinion)to focus attention on the subject.  To
me that only works if you've got tunnel vision or the background is so
separate form the foreground to be abstract.  Eyes naturally move so-as to
not burn in and also to look at different things (unless you're drunk or so
I've heard.)  Personally I like to be able to look at every corner of photos
if I can.  So, in adding realism to a render, a little focal blur goes a
long way.  Just my 2c.

Charles

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4578549c$1@news.povray.org...
> 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 think this has a lot to do with blurry HDRi backgrounds that need focal 
blur to blend in.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos
"The truth is out there"

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4578549c$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
>

As a long-time (amateur) photographer, I tend to agree with you. But, as you 
say, it is subjective. I have very rarely used focal blur in POV-Ray, mainly 
because I almost never do close-up scenes, but I feel tempted to do a series 
of try-outs (when I find some time...)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message