 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's my dilemma, I have two objects spaced apart by about 40 units that I
need in focus and I have a large object about 1000 units away that needs a
little bit of focul blur. However, since the object is far away, I need more
focul blur to make it visible which makes the object not centered blured a
great deal. Now, I thought I could make the far away object even farther
away and the scaling it so it would appear to be the same size but the
amount of blur it needs doesn't change.
So, it seems to me my problem is that focul blur is linear when I need it to
be something like exponential or parabolic, that way blur increases more
rappidly outside a certain area.
Is there anything I can do fix this? It seems motion blur would work for the
far away object and then leave out focul blur, but that isn't a feature 3.5
decide to pick up. Any other way of bluring an object other than actually
jittering the objects placement (which btw is rather complex and would take
a very long time)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Becker wrote:
>
> blur increases more
> rappidly outside a certain area.
>
> Is there anything I can do fix this?
Apply masks and blur filters in an image editor.
Or composite two or more images rendered with different apertures.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Becker <cmb### [at] rit edu> wrote:
> So, it seems to me my problem is that focul blur is linear when I need it to
> be something like exponential or parabolic, that way blur increases more
> rappidly outside a certain area.
This would need bent rays, so it's not possible.
Besides, it's something which probably just doesn't happen in photography,
so what you are trying to model is probably physically inaccurate anyways.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2002 09:15:33 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> This would need bent rays, so it's not possible.
My deform patch used aproximation of bent rays to deform object.
It was only aproximation but result was (nearly) exact.
> Besides, it's something which probably just doesn't happen in photography,
> so what you are trying to model is probably physically inaccurate anyways.
Is this so important ? Does all possible values of transmit or filter happen
in reality ? Is color of photos made from rgb components ? I think POV-Ray
isn't mirror of reality so it can make things imposible there.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's not so much a focul blur as it is a fuzyhazing effect that I need for
some landscape in the background. I think the best way to do it would be to
render it seperatly and then image map it on a box as a background.
news:fbl3au4hs12m67tndoe1sl3a2fe0so4vu8@4ax.com...
> On 27 Mar 2002 09:15:33 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > This would need bent rays, so it's not possible.
>
> My deform patch used aproximation of bent rays to deform object.
> It was only aproximation but result was (nearly) exact.
>
> > Besides, it's something which probably just doesn't happen in
photography,
> > so what you are trying to model is probably physically inaccurate
anyways.
>
> Is this so important ? Does all possible values of transmit or filter
happen
> in reality ? Is color of photos made from rgb components ? I think POV-Ray
> isn't mirror of reality so it can make things imposible there.
>
> ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's not so much a focul blur as it is a fuzyhazing effect that I need for
> some landscape in the background. I think the best way to do it would be to
> render it seperatly and then image map it on a box as a background.
>
Maybe, you can use a transparent plane in the distance with a blur-normal
that some people here (I think, Ron Parker was involved) introduced some time
ago (it's something with avarage many normals together, maybe someone who
knows can speak up...) everything behind would be blured, everything before
would be sharp.
It would be slow and cheating, but you can try...
cukk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I did try that but the blur was grainy so I kind of ditched the idea.
"KalleK" <kal### [at] gmxde> wrote in message news:3ca2ceb5@news.povray.org...
>
> > It's not so much a focul blur as it is a fuzyhazing effect that I need
for
> > some landscape in the background. I think the best way to do it would be
to
> > render it seperatly and then image map it on a box as a background.
> >
>
> Maybe, you can use a transparent plane in the distance with a blur-normal
> that some people here (I think, Ron Parker was involved) introduced some
time
> ago (it's something with avarage many normals together, maybe someone who
> knows can speak up...) everything behind would be blured, everything
before
> would be sharp.
> It would be slow and cheating, but you can try...
>
> cukk
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ca32297$1@news.povray.org>,
"Chris Becker" <cmb### [at] ritedu> wrote:
> I did try that but the blur was grainy so I kind of ditched the idea.
Then you probably did it wrong, the method described by Ron leads to
more blotchy artifacts. The idea is to not use small-scaled normals, but
to use an average of textures with large-scale normals.
http://news.povray.org/search/advanced/?s=blurred+reflection&b=Search&g=p
ovray.binaries.images&a=0&p=0
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
