 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3eef9053@news.povray.org>,
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> Did it with pigment-patterns alone, but had to
> go through a function once to apply my own
> color-map for transparencies. Thanks for
> the suggestion anyways!
The point of using a function image would be for rendering
speed...evaluating the function/average pigment can get quite slow, you
can do it once at parse time and get a faster render. If you're just
rendering the image on a plane to just do a post-process filter, this
probably won't help.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3eef8eba$1@news.povray.org>,
Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> It should be possible with functions, but will that will
> be slow and limited to grayscale.
pigment {average
pigment_map {
[1 function {R_Func(x, y, z)} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 red 3]}]
[1 function {G_Func(x, y, z)} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 green 3]}]
[1 function {B_Func(x, y, z)} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 blue 3]}]
}
}
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hm.. I don't understand what you're after.
What I'm doing now is take several pigments
and average them for the blurring effect. I then
wrap this into a function and apply my own
color_map. So I'm passing it through the function
like you suggested. Or am I misunderstanding
something?
Do note that I do need transparency based on
the brightness, so I'm not sure what you're after.
Are you suggesting I should use image_map function
to create an internal image-map, then pass that to
a function again, for me to apply the transparency?
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> > Did it with pigment-patterns alone, but had to
> > go through a function once to apply my own
> > color-map for transparencies. Thanks for
> > the suggestion anyways!
>
> The point of using a function image would be for rendering
> speed...evaluating the function/average pigment can get quite slow, you
> can do it once at parse time and get a faster render. If you're just
> rendering the image on a plane to just do a post-process filter, this
> probably won't help.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
> POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've just tried and compared the image_map
approach to the approach I used. You're
idea about passing the pigment through the
image_map function moves the load off of
the tracing process onto the parsing process.
So, depending if I want quick renders or
quick parsing, I set up a switch so that one might
choose freely where the timing should rise.. :-)
I'm wondering though, if there'd be a method
to output that image_map function on the fly,
that'd be neat!
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> Hm.. I don't understand what you're after.
> What I'm doing now is take several pigments
> and average them for the blurring effect. I then
> wrap this into a function and apply my own
> color_map. So I'm passing it through the function
> like you suggested. Or am I misunderstanding
> something?
> Do note that I do need transparency based on
> the brightness, so I'm not sure what you're after.
> Are you suggesting I should use image_map function
> to create an internal image-map, then pass that to
> a function again, for me to apply the transparency?
>
> --
> Tim Nikias v2.0
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>
> > > Did it with pigment-patterns alone, but had to
> > > go through a function once to apply my own
> > > color-map for transparencies. Thanks for
> > > the suggestion anyways!
> >
> > The point of using a function image would be for rendering
> > speed...evaluating the function/average pigment can get quite slow, you
> > can do it once at parse time and get a faster render. If you're just
> > rendering the image on a plane to just do a post-process filter, this
> > probably won't help.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
> > POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> > http://tag.povray.org/
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ef0222c$1@news.povray.org>,
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> I've just tried and compared the image_map
> approach to the approach I used. You're
> idea about passing the pigment through the
> image_map function moves the load off of
> the tracing process onto the parsing process.
> So, depending if I want quick renders or
> quick parsing, I set up a switch so that one might
> choose freely where the timing should rise.. :-)
Exactly. If you were using the blurred pigment in an actual scene, you
could save rendering time this way. But if you are just putting the
pigment on a plane to render a blurred image, it isn't as useful.
> I'm wondering though, if there'd be a method
> to output that image_map function on the fly,
> that'd be neat!
I'm not sure what you mean...are you talking about automatically
generating the function-of-image-map-of-pigment-function construct? That
could be done with a simple macro.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias v2 0
Subject: Re: Creating blurred image via textures...?
Date: 19 Jun 2003 12:41:31
Message: <3ef1e7bb@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What I meant is that if POV-Ray creates an internal
image-map, that one could be saved to disk, couldn't
it? And I don't mean rendering it alone to get an
image. While POV-Ray parses, it could output the
data it saves for the internal image-map to an
image...
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
> > I've just tried and compared the image_map
> > approach to the approach I used. You're
> > idea about passing the pigment through the
> > image_map function moves the load off of
> > the tracing process onto the parsing process.
> > So, depending if I want quick renders or
> > quick parsing, I set up a switch so that one might
> > choose freely where the timing should rise.. :-)
>
> Exactly. If you were using the blurred pigment in an actual scene, you
> could save rendering time this way. But if you are just putting the
> pigment on a plane to render a blurred image, it isn't as useful.
>
>
> > I'm wondering though, if there'd be a method
> > to output that image_map function on the fly,
> > that'd be neat!
>
> I'm not sure what you mean...are you talking about automatically
> generating the function-of-image-map-of-pigment-function construct? That
> could be done with a simple macro.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
> POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ef1e7bb@news.povray.org>,
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> What I meant is that if POV-Ray creates an internal
> image-map, that one could be saved to disk, couldn't
> it? And I don't mean rendering it alone to get an
> image. While POV-Ray parses, it could output the
> data it saves for the internal image-map to an
> image...
This would be possible to implement. You could even do it in POV Script
with an ASCII image format. Unless there is some use for this within the
scene file, it might be better as part of a post-process stage...one
thing I've always wanted was the ability to create and save multiple
image buffers. You could create multiple post-processed versions, and
combine them into more versions, etc.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
I used this to create a blurred image texture by adding small scale bozo to
the coordinates. It looks a little like smeared chalk.
Bye,
Hans Mikelson
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> pigment {average
> pigment_map {
> [1 function {R_Func(x, y, z)} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 red 3]}]
> [1 function {G_Func(x, y, z)} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 green 3]}]
> [1 function {B_Func(x, y, z)} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 blue 3]}]
> }
> }
#declare fbi = function {pattern {bozo turbulence .015 octaves 5 omega
1.3 lambda 1.5 scale .001}} ;
#declare fimage = function {pigment {image_map {png "image8.png"}}} ;
#declare T_Blur01 =
texture
{
//pigment {
//image_map {
// function 100, 100 {fimage(x,y,z)}
pigment
{average
pigment_map
{
[1 function {fimage(x+fbi(x,y,z)*.1, y+fbi(x,y,z)*.1,
z+fbi(x,y,z)*.1).red} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 red 3]}]
[1 function {fimage(x+fbi(x,y,z)*.1, y+fbi(x,y,z)*.1,
z+fbi(x,y,z)*.1).green} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 green 3]}]
[1 function {fimage(x+fbi(x,y,z)*.1, y+fbi(x,y,z)*.1,
z+fbi(x,y,z)*.1).blue} color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 blue 3]}]
}
}
finish {
ambient 1.0
diffuse 0.0
}
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
