Here's the new version, more suitable for my windoze desktop without
the annoying b&w checkered floor. The orb is the same, lightigh too,
the camera has moved a bit, and the floor is an attemt at artistic
tilesets using Arabeske. The focal blur was added in PhotoShop, a
Gaussian blur using a distance map as a mask, so it's real (but much
faster). Render time? Dunno, about 1h 30min on my K6.233 and then
about two hours on a K62/300. Enjoy

Peter

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'orb2.jpg' (43 KB)

Preview of image 'orb2.jpg'

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Here's the new version, more suitable for my windoze desktop without
> the annoying b&w checkered floor. The orb is the same, lightigh too,
> the camera has moved a bit, and the floor is an attemt at artistic
> tilesets using Arabeske. The focal blur was added in PhotoShop, a
> Gaussian blur using a distance map as a mask, so it's real (but much
> faster). Render time? Dunno, about 1h 30min on my K6.233 and then
> about two hours on a K62/300. Enjoy
> 
> Peter

I like the "Orb".
I like the shape of the tiles.
I like the textures used on the tiles.
I like the lighting used in this scene.

I don't like the focal blur. It looks unatural.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Don't pay any attention to Ken {:c), it's a nice effect, that distance
blur. Causes you to focus (ha, a play on words) on the center. Actually
Ken may be right about something there, the blurring seems extreme to
me. Oops, there I go, getting negative.
But I'm jealous of it since I don't have a program with that ability.
Wouldn't have known that was the same "orb". Looks more like a pearl
now.
Btw, what is with the aliasing artifacts at mid-bottom on the jade-like
tiles edge? I don't see similar anywhere else.

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Here's the new version, more suitable for my windoze desktop without
> the annoying b&w checkered floor. The orb is the same, lightigh too,
> the camera has moved a bit, and the floor is an attemt at artistic
> tilesets using Arabeske. The focal blur was added in PhotoShop, a
> Gaussian blur using a distance map as a mask, so it's real (but much
> faster). Render time? Dunno, about 1h 30min on my K6.233 and then
> about two hours on a K62/300. Enjoy
> 
> Peter
> 
>  [Image]

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message

Here I go again :-)
Loving the floor, enjoying the orb/pearl beeing jealous of your skill, and disliking
the
focal... Why ??It just feels "wrong" hurts my eyes somewhat... 

//Spider

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Here's the new version, more suitable for my windoze desktop without
> the annoying b&w checkered floor. The orb is the same, lightigh too,
> the camera has moved a bit, and the floor is an attemt at artistic
> tilesets using Arabeske. The focal blur was added in PhotoShop, a
> Gaussian blur using a distance map as a mask, so it's real (but much
> faster). Render time? Dunno, about 1h 30min on my K6.233 and then
> about two hours on a K62/300. Enjoy
> 
> Peter
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Not unnatural if you have high astigmatism, are very nearsighted and have
your face right next to the orb ...

--
Jim

Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
and provide scientific insights beyond compare!

Be sure to read the Warp maintained POV VFAQ:
http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ.html




Ken wrote in message <36B15ADE.7730103B@pacbell.net>...
>Peter Popov wrote:
>>
>> Here's the new version, more suitable for my windoze desktop without
>> the annoying b&w checkered floor. The orb is the same, lightigh too,
>> the camera has moved a bit, and the floor is an attemt at artistic
>> tilesets using Arabeske. The focal blur was added in PhotoShop, a
>> Gaussian blur using a distance map as a mask, so it's real (but much
>> faster). Render time? Dunno, about 1h 30min on my K6.233 and then
>> about two hours on a K62/300. Enjoy
>>
>> Peter
>
>I like the "Orb".
>I like the shape of the tiles.
>I like the textures used on the tiles.
>I like the lighting used in this scene.
>
>I don't like the focal blur. It looks unatural.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Thank you guys for your comments!

As it seems you don't like the focal blur. Me neither. I had to choose
between a blurry or an aliased picture. I can see that blurring sucks,
but I tried all my best to reduce aliasing and failed. I am now
stretching a pleading hand to you. Here's the set-up.

I am using Arabeske to create the tiles. The output is a 276x484 b&w
image. A coloured version is used for a material_map and the b&w image
is used as a basis for creating a grayscal height_field which is the
repeating tileset pattern.

Problem 1: A tileable material_map is no longer tileable if the
interpolate option is used, and otherwise it's jaggy. What should I
do?

Problem 2. The height_field image is too small and it looks aliased.
Scaling it does not solve the problem, and drawing it by hand is not
an option (I need this for a tutorial and "draw it pixel by pixel" is
not the best thing to say to encourage a newbee to use a program).
Again, what should I do?

I will greatly appreciate any advice as this is the first picture of
my own that I like at least a little and may also become my first
complete scene (if you call a ball and a floor "a scene"). Reducing
aliasing due to low-res height_field and material_map source images
will also make a nice tutorial or at least a section in the VFAQ. If
any of those two has been written I will be thankful if someone
pointed out an url for me. TIA for your help.

Regards,
Peter

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Thank you guys for your comments!
> 
> As it seems you don't like the focal blur. Me neither. I had to choose
> between a blurry or an aliased picture. I can see that blurring sucks,
> but I tried all my best to reduce aliasing and failed. I am now
> stretching a pleading hand to you. Here's the set-up.
> 
> I am using Arabeske to create the tiles. The output is a 276x484 b&w
> image. A coloured version is used for a material_map and the b&w image
> is used as a basis for creating a grayscal height_field which is the
> repeating tileset pattern.
> 
> Problem 1: A tileable material_map is no longer tileable if the
> interpolate option is used, and otherwise it's jaggy. What should I
> do?

Are we talking material maps or image maps ?

I never knew the interpolat function to be a problem.
I don't ever recall any problems with it anyway.

 
> Problem 2. The height_field image is too small and it looks aliased.
> Scaling it does not solve the problem, and drawing it by hand is not
> an option (I need this for a tutorial and "draw it pixel by pixel" is
> not the best thing to say to encourage a newbee to use a program).
> Again, what should I do?
> 
> I will greatly appreciate any advice as this is the first picture of
> my own that I like at least a little and may also become my first
> complete scene (if you call a ball and a floor "a scene"). Reducing
> aliasing due to low-res height_field and material_map source images
> will also make a nice tutorial or at least a section in the VFAQ. If
> any of those two has been written I will be thankful if someone
> pointed out an url for me. TIA for your help.
> 
> Regards,
> Peter

With regard to the height field problem the only suggestion I can
make is to give it a try in a HF program like Leveller. You can
preset the grid size before importing the image to be used as the
HF map. It may still have gridding even once imported into Leveller
but you can use the host of tools it has available to smooth out
the rough edges. It offers a user definable gaussian filter alogrithm
that works very well. Once fixed to your satisfaction you can export
a Pov compatible HF_Gray_16 image with the increase grid size you
choose.

I have tried manipulating "too small" images in a paint program
and the fact is if the number of pixels are not there in the
first place it is hard to replace them when you strech them over
a larger area.

Leveller:
http://www.daylongraphics.com/

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:51:35 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

<snip> 
>> Problem 1: A tileable material_map is no longer tileable if the
>> interpolate option is used, and otherwise it's jaggy. What should I
>> do?
>
>Are we talking material maps or image maps ?
>
>I never knew the interpolat function to be a problem.
>I don't ever recall any problems with it anyway.

I am referring to material maps here. On the pic I posted, if I use
interpolation (bi-linear or bi-cubic), the seams of the tiles become
visible, marked with dark lines. I am guessing that POV does not "wrap
around" the image when interpolationg, which makes sense for
non-tileable image and material maps. Maybe a keyword like "tileable"
sometime in the future will solve the problem. Currently, this can be
avoided by using a pigment_map with a brick_size of, say,
<0.99,0.99,0.99> and a gutter <0.02,0.02,0.02> translated
<0.01,0.01,0.01>, the interpolated image_map for bricks and
non-interpolated -- for gutter (this one just came to me :) )

>
>With regard to the height field problem the only suggestion I can
>make is to give it a try in a HF program like Leveller. You can
>preset the grid size before importing the image to be used as the
>HF map. It may still have gridding even once imported into Leveller
>but you can use the host of tools it has available to smooth out
>the rough edges. It offers a user definable gaussian filter alogrithm
>that works very well. Once fixed to your satisfaction you can export
>a Pov compatible HF_Gray_16 image with the increase grid size you
>choose.

I can do that, right. I have some real old beta of Leveller and it
tends to crash my unstable system. There are several ways that I can
go, but I was hoping there was a cheap and cheasy way to solve the
problem that has somehow escaped me. For this particular pic I'll draw
the tile contours using some vector graphics program at a zoom level
1:4 to 1:16 and then rasterise it.

>I have tried manipulating "too small" images in a paint program
>and the fact is if the number of pixels are not there in the
>first place it is hard to replace them when you strech them over
>a larger area.
>
>Leveller:
>http://www.daylongraphics.com/

Regards,
Peter

Post a reply to this message

Not sure if I have anything to contribute. Just thinking, sounds like
you need small files and a way to use them with good enough quality.
How about loading them as image_maps in POV, outputing as much larger
files as a pre-process using interpolation/antialiasing then inputing
back in afterward un-interpolated. Like I say, unsure of the actual
results you would have in that particular case though. At least this way
you can start small and end big, using the POV output as a image
processor to smooth out the scaled up images/hf.
Understand?

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> Thank you guys for your comments!
> 
> As it seems you don't like the focal blur. Me neither. I had to choose
> between a blurry or an aliased picture. I can see that blurring sucks,
> but I tried all my best to reduce aliasing and failed. I am now
> stretching a pleading hand to you. Here's the set-up.
> 
> I am using Arabeske to create the tiles. The output is a 276x484 b&w
> image. A coloured version is used for a material_map and the b&w image
> is used as a basis for creating a grayscal height_field which is the
> repeating tileset pattern.
> 
> Problem 1: A tileable material_map is no longer tileable if the
> interpolate option is used, and otherwise it's jaggy. What should I
> do?
> 
> Problem 2. The height_field image is too small and it looks aliased.
> Scaling it does not solve the problem, and drawing it by hand is not
> an option (I need this for a tutorial and "draw it pixel by pixel" is
> not the best thing to say to encourage a newbee to use a program).
> Again, what should I do?
> 
> I will greatly appreciate any advice as this is the first picture of
> my own that I like at least a little and may also become my first
> complete scene (if you call a ball and a floor "a scene"). Reducing
> aliasing due to low-res height_field and material_map source images
> will also make a nice tutorial or at least a section in the VFAQ. If
> any of those two has been written I will be thankful if someone
> pointed out an url for me. TIA for your help.
> 
> Regards,
> Peter

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:01:10 -0600, Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>Not sure if I have anything to contribute. Just thinking, sounds like
>you need small files and a way to use them with good enough quality.
>How about loading them as image_maps in POV, outputing as much larger
>files as a pre-process using interpolation/antialiasing then inputing
>back in afterward un-interpolated. Like I say, unsure of the actual
>results you would have in that particular case though. At least this way
>you can start small and end big, using the POV output as a image
>processor to smooth out the scaled up images/hf.
>Understand?

The problem is not file size but resolution. If you've seen Arabeske
you know it outputs to a black and white and somewhat small image
(unless you have a decent JVM and the multi windows work for you).
Interpolation doesn't work for the same reason you can't render a
160x120 pic and stretch it to 800x600 to get the same result as if
you've rendered it big... there's a lack of image information. I tried
bilinear and bicubic in PhotoShop and even fractal interpolation in
Corel Draw to no avail. Maybe the best way is good old Paint? :)

The question remains open (probably needs a separate thread in
.general...)

Regards,
Peter

Post a reply to this message