Op 05/02/2021 om 15:52 schreef William F Pokorny:
> On 2/5/21 2:28 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I have the intention to do also a stochastic render of the scene. I 
>> /think/ that would give a better result. 
> 
> Yes, that would be interesting to see. With the stochastic techniques 
> I'm always wondering how much is a better render result and how much 
> looks better because one has introduced noise. And if that last true, 
> even in part, might we add noise by some more efficient means. Anyway... 
> Always a thousand ideas.

I have started a stochastic render and so far it looks good: finer 
details becoming clearer. No special settings at this moment: +a0.1 
+ac0.95 +r3. I later want to see how, drastically decreasing +ac, will 
turn out. Noise should be more visible then.

> 
> I've been playing with more ideas using your image. Attaching three 
> images. In toBloomOrOther.jpg showing your original to my already posted 
> bloom filter image in the top row. In the middle row the bloom filter at 
> about 1/3 the aggressiveness of the top row. In the bottom row not 
> really bloom, but more adding noise by regional sampling about each 
> pixel. Less blur in the bottom two rows, but still maybe too much to 
> tastes.

I need to study those images a bit longer. Interesting stuff indeed.

> 
> While at that, Mr's question about adding more contrast knocked 
> something loose in my head and I had the thought, "what does average do 
> with negative weights...?" Well! Interesting stuff - about which I've 
> not completely wrapped my head.
> 
> You can use negative weights. If you get the balance right you can get 
> an image with more contrast with my bloom filter set up. Using:
> 
>       #declare PigmentMap00 = pigment_map {
>      [-1.0 Pigment1 ]
>      [-0.7 Pigment2 ]
>      [-0.6 Pigment3 ]
>      [+0.5 Pigment4 ]
>      [+0.4 Pigment5 ]
>      [+0.3 Pigment6 ]
>      [+0.2 Pigment7 ]
>      [+0.1 Pigment8 ]
> }
> #declare PigmMerge = pigment {
>      average
>      pigment_map { PigmentMap00 }
> }
> 
> I get the Contrast00.jpg image, which isn't traditional contrast, but 
> something more along the lines of tone mapping. Without even trying! I 
> find it amusing it's possible to stumble my way into such functionality. 
> :-) Aside: I shrank the image size because it got large even as a jpeg 
> due the detail popping out - the detail jr wanted to see and probably 
> still can't. ;-)

Jr is presently battling the sticky paint on his fingers. :-)

> 
> If you get the balance for contrast slightly wrong, other interesting 
> things happen. See Cartoon00.jpg. The only difference is the -0.6 weight 
> above was instead +0.6.

I like the Cartoon version!

> 
> Creating these last two images is fast supposing the eight image 
> pigments into the average function already exist. Whether with effort 
> and exploration techniques using negative average weights could be made 
> more finely controllable - in other words, truly usable - I don't know.
> 

I need to look close here. This is interesting.

> So many things to play with and so little time.

True. True. I am glad this image fires off the neurons.

> 
> Bill P.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message