|
 |
In article <njUGOUFjcnSZ3qj34lbk51m8BluE@4ax.com>, Glen Berry
<7no### [at] ezwv com> wrote:
> How hard would it be to do something like the following?
>
> resultRed = ( ((R+G+B)/3)^0.95)*1.05
> resultGreen = (R+G+B)/3
> resultBlue = ((R+G+B)/3)^0.9
>
> This gives a fairly close approximation of Selenium Toning.
Hmm, now that I think of it...if I add "exponent" and "multiply"
filters...that could be probably be written using multiple filters:
post_process {
color_matrix < 0.3, 0.3, 0.3,
0.3, 0.3, 0.3,
0.3, 0.3, 0.3 >
exponent < 0.95, 1, 0.9>
multiply < 1.05, 1, 1>
}
> Or maybe this?
>
> resultRed = ((R+G+B)/3)^0.67
> resultGreen = ((R+G+B)/3)^0.85
> resultBlue = ((R+G+B)/3)
>
> This gives a fairly close approximation of Sepia Toning
post_process {
color_matrix < 0.3, 0.3, 0.3,
0.3, 0.3, 0.3,
0.3, 0.3, 0.3 >
exponent < 0.67, 0.85, 1>
}
> Or maybe even this?
>
> output_Red = 100*sin(R*pi*3)
> output_Green = 100*cos(G*pi*3)
> output_Blue = -100*sin(B*pi*3)
>
> This gives a very wild posterization effect
post_process {
color_function < function {100*sin(r(h,v)*pi*3)},
function {100*cos(g(h,v)*pi*3)},
function {100*sin(b(h,v)*pi*3)} >
}
I don't know enough about the inner workings of isosurface functions to
do this last one, though.
One other thing that might be possible: some kind of heiarchical linking
of post_process filters. Instead of a simple list, you could have
several "branches" that are combined at the end. I am not sure if I am
up to coding this though. :-)
An example would be:
post_process {
average {
find_edges {...}
find_edges {...}
blur {...}
}
}
This would do each filter individually, and then average their results.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoo com
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tag povray org
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
 |