Here's the same image without the noise. If you compared them closely, you
can see that this one is cleaner.
I used the technique described by Kari Kavisalo some posts ago. Scale up the
image, add noise (double noise in the blue channel), blur a bit, scale down
again.

It's subtle, but should be noticeable to the trained eye.

And yes, among other shortcomings, I have far-from-perfect eyesight. Perhaps
somebody who was born luckier than me, and has better eyes could tell me
that both images are not the same.

Of course, I strive for realism and photo-realism, please forgive my poor
English which didn't let me express myself as I wanted.

Fernando.



"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3d03aa22$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto" <fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote :
> >
> > I applied a slight noise, again, to add a bit of realism.
>
>     You know, I've been looking around, and I don't see any noise. Perhaps
> you meant photo-realism, which is much less real than realism. Or perhaps
it
> is time you had your eyes checked?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dice14ppns.JPG' (80 KB)

Preview of image 'dice14ppns.JPG'