Am 01.12.2011 15:26, schrieb Invisible:
> On 01/12/2011 12:22 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 01.12.2011 11:02, schrieb Invisible:
>>
>>> I still don't see how you can "fix" the seems. It's not like you can
>>> move individual blades of grass around.
>>
>> For /really/ good seamless textures, that's exactly what you do.
>
> Except that, uh, it can't be done? :-P

Hush - don't tell my mom; she does stuff like that for a hobby. Copying 
stuff from one photo and pasting it into others. She'd indeed isolate 
and copy around individual leaves or grass blades if that gets her where 
she wants to go. You need sufficiently high-res photographs to start 
with of course.

>> You haven't spent much time with Photoshop or Gimp, have you?
>
> Photoshop is /far/ too expensive for me to ever afford. (Especially
> given that I'd probably hardly ever use it anyway.)

How about Photoshop Elements? That's what my mom's been using.

>>> POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
>>> textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
>>> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
>>> texture or...
>>
>> Make that "last time I checked, no-one had yet found a way of...",
>> because unless you've checked every possible combination of parameters,
>> layered textures, averaged textures, and what-have-you, there are still
>> ways undiscovered that might lead to the desired result.
>
> Most interesting textures do not have closed-form representations.
> POV-Ray only renders closed-form equations. QED.

I don't know the theory behind closed-form and non-closed-form 
equations, but I guess both of your axioms are somewhat flawed, so no 
QED yet.

Post a reply to this message