Self explanatory image containing 5 renders, at least self explanatory if you
have looked into the 'post_process' feature at all, maybe not so otherwise.
  Most noticeable thing I've seen about it is the tendency to undo any
antialiasing.  The 'depth' post process removes AA entirely but then that's the
idea, no shades of gray where they ought not to be.  But for the other two
processes it's kind of disrupting the primary render.  It might not be extremely
obvious in these images although I tried somewhat to make it so, look at the
speaker edges especially.
  Btw, I'm not complaining about it, these are way too good having them
available, just wanted to point it out for anyone about to go into it
themselves.  If focal_blur and soft_glow were AA friendly it would be fabulous
stuff.
Remember to use +FT or +FC or File_Output_Type=T or C!

Bob
--
omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'post_proc5.jpg' (67 KB)

Preview of image 'post_proc5.jpg'

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
>   Self explanatory image containing 5 renders, at least self explanatory if you
> have looked into the 'post_process' feature at all, maybe not so otherwise.

I wonder how this will be treated by the post processing rules in the IRTC...

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

>I wonder how this will be treated by the post processing rules in the
IRTC...


Hmmm, I think it falls just out of the jurisdiction of the rules, because
it's all done in one render with POV, no extra tools are being used on the
final image.

POV 03    MAX 10

We're getting there! We can still win!

Post a reply to this message

In article <389804EF.A7D03A87@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg 
wrote:
>I wonder how this will be treated by the post processing rules in the 
>IRTC...

How do these post-processors work? Are they aware of the objects in the 
image, or are they truly post-processing and know nothing about the 3d 
aspects of the image? Or something in between?

Jerry

Post a reply to this message

Jerry wrote:
> 
> In article <389804EF.A7D03A87@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
> wrote:
> >I wonder how this will be treated by the post processing rules in the
> >IRTC...
> 
> How do these post-processors work? Are they aware of the objects in the
> image, or are they truly post-processing and know nothing about the 3d
> aspects of the image? Or something in between?
They do have some 3d-information!  How else would the depth-function,
or the focal_blur work?

> Jerry

ZK

Post a reply to this message

Yes, the 'focal_blur' and 'depth' read the actual scene models as though it were
the usual render, just that it gets done after the first raytrace is done.  It
may be that the method used can't be applied while the render is going on,
somehow not able to be incorporated during the trace.  I don't think the same
goes for the 'soft_glow' effect, just to make a guess.  Suppose Nathan knows all
about it.

Bob

"Zeger Knaepen" <ZEG### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote in message
news:38989DE8.1CE8639E@student.kuleuven.ac.be...
| Jerry wrote:
| >
| > In article <389804EF.A7D03A87@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
| > wrote:
| > >I wonder how this will be treated by the post processing rules in the
| > >IRTC...
| >
| > How do these post-processors work? Are they aware of the objects in the
| > image, or are they truly post-processing and know nothing about the 3d
| > aspects of the image? Or something in between?
| They do have some 3d-information!  How else would the depth-function,
| or the focal_blur work?
|
| > Jerry
|
| ZK

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:

>   Self explanatory image containing 5 renders, at least self explanatory if you
> have looked into the 'post_process' feature at all, maybe not so otherwise.
>   Most noticeable thing I've seen about it is the tendency to undo any
> antialiasing.  The 'depth' post process removes AA entirely but then that's the
> idea, no shades of gray where they ought not to be.  But for the other two
> processes it's kind of disrupting the primary render.  It might not be extremely
> obvious in these images although I tried somewhat to make it so, look at the
> speaker edges especially.

I think it's not *that* bad, since the unprocessed one seems to have pretty bad AA
anyway. But it does make a small difference that might interfere with some scenes.

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

Jerry <jer### [at] acusdedu> wrote...
> In article <389804EF.A7D03A87@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
> wrote:
> >I wonder how this will be treated by the post processing rules in the
> >IRTC...
>
> How do these post-processors work? Are they aware of the objects in the
> image, or are they truly post-processing and know nothing about the 3d
> aspects of the image? Or something in between?

MegaPov caches data for the objects, normal, depth, true color (unclipped
float values), and other information as needed.  This data is stored in a
file (so that it should work with continued traces... I haven't tested that
part yet).

This data is then used by the post-processors to modify the output file.  If
POV stored the output file entirely in memory, then this could easily be
done completely in memory (although it could require a lot of RAM).  As it
is, POV only stores one scan-line of the image in memory at a time, and
therefore the output file and/or data cache file must be read back in when
POV gets to the post-processing step.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote...
>   Most noticeable thing I've seen about it is the tendency to undo any
> antialiasing.  The 'depth' post process removes AA entirely but then
that's the
> idea, no shades of gray where they ought not to be.  But for the other two
> processes it's kind of disrupting the primary render.  It might not be
extremely
> obvious in these images although I tried somewhat to make it so, look at
the
> speaker edges especially.

depth could possibly be antialiased, but it might not be desired.

soft_glow will not affect aliasing any more than if you had done the post
processing with PSP or PhotoShop.

focal_blur.... I'm not sure about this one.  It uses the non-antialiased
depth data, so t could possibly introduce aliasing back into the scene, but
I doubt that it would.  Your original scene does have some aliasing
artifacts in it, which are probably exaggerated by the post-processing
filters.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

In article <3898ac2f@news.povray.org>, "Bob Hughes" 
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>Yes, the 'focal_blur' and 'depth' read the actual scene models as 
>though it were the usual render, just that it gets done after the 
>first raytrace is done. 
>guess.  Suppose Nathan knows all about it.

Yes, he explained it about three posts up. I assume he was answering my 
question, but it all went over my head :*)

I would guess that, at the very least, the focal_blur and depth are not 
post-processing as defined by the rules.

Jerry

Post a reply to this message