what is this specual blur i hear so much about latly

Post a reply to this message

Similar to camera blurring, but done after the render completes instead of while
rendering.  Much faster.  Basically it's like smoothing or blurring in a
external image processing program except that it uses the 3D info from the scene
file.  The MegaPov html or help document tells how to use it.

Bob

"Noah A" <vip### [at] powersurfrcom> wrote in message
news:389A4DD0.371BDA32@powersurfr.com...
| what is this specual blur i hear so much about latly
|

Post a reply to this message

Good question.
Good answer.

Just MHO,

Peter Warren
war### [at] hotmailcom

Post a reply to this message

MegaPov creates two images or just rewrites the first ??

Bob Hughes wrote:

> Similar to camera blurring, but done after the render completes instead of while
> rendering.  Much faster.  Basically it's like smoothing or blurring in a
> external image processing program except that it uses the 3D info from the scene
> file.  The MegaPov html or help document tells how to use it.
>
> Bob
>
> "Noah A" <vip### [at] powersurfrcom> wrote in message
> news:389A4DD0.371BDA32@powersurfr.com...
> | what is this specual blur i hear so much about latly
> |

Post a reply to this message

Either way that is two images, yes  :-)
If you use +FN for a Png file type you will get 2 images but the post process
won't write the change to the file.
You can pause the render during post processing (if you can catch it in time)
and copy the output file (Tga, not Png) elsewhere then let POV continue and
you'll have a pair that way.

Bob

"Ryan Mooney" <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:389A2354.A2F629C2@earthlink.net...
| MegaPov creates two images or just rewrites the first ??

Post a reply to this message

That brings up a new question:  is this considered illegal post-processing under
IRTC rules?  It is all done within the renderer, and no external programs are
used, but would it be considered legal?

Post a reply to this message

Richard wrote in message <389BD642.A1943B3A@mindspring.com>...
>That brings up a new question:  is this considered illegal post-processing
under
>IRTC rules?  It is all done within the renderer, and no external programs
are
>used, but would it be considered legal?


From the IRTC Stills FAQ:
[1.1.10] My renderer can do lens flare, motion blur, etc.--is that legal?
     Yes, generally. If it is something that the renderer does as part of
producing the image, and not something you run against the image file as a
separate process, then it is legal. The judges look very closely at such
effects, however, so use them with caution.
[1.1.11] Exactly what do you mean by "post-processing"?
     That means running any image-manipulation program on the image after it
is rendered. Paint programs, photo manipulation programs, and the like are
generally not allowed, except for a few explicit exceptions. We want the
image to be the output of a renderer, not a human or special-effects
program. One guideline that has been mentioned is that any process which
affects every pixel in the image is usually okay, but that's not a hard and
fast rule--it's just used to encompass gamma correction, resizing,
conversion to JPEG format, and so forth, all of which are legal. Another
guideline is, don't do anything to the image that you wouldn't be prepared
to do for every frame of a 30-minute animation.

Since the post-processing is done after the rendering, but it is done by the
renderer, it would appear that this issue is up to the IRTC Admins.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

Ah, but it's a post =rendering= process actually, and not really a post process
per se.  Since it is using the scene file info to do it then I can't see why it
wouldn't be legal for IRTC submission.  It's very much the same as any other
in-render effect only done separately, kind of like moving the reflection
raytracing outside of the usual loop and applying it afterward (if that was a
possibility).
That's how I see it anyway.  Well, 'soft_glow'  could very well be illegal since
it doesn't use scene info I suppose.  If anything I believe Nathan Kopp will
have to be the ultimate judge on this by giving an account as to what is done in
a raytrace/rendering sort of way or not.  Same about the proposed lens flare
post process and whatever else of future versions that might be done in this
fashion.
Mainly it's probably going to be more a voting issue than anything else, with
points lost on using such a feature.  I don't think that should be so if a
permission is passed on it for example.

Bob

"Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
news:389bba55@news.povray.org...
|
| Richard wrote in message <389BD642.A1943B3A@mindspring.com>...
| >That brings up a new question:  is this considered illegal post-processing
| under
| >IRTC rules?  It is all done within the renderer, and no external programs
| are
| >used, but would it be considered legal?
|
|
| From the IRTC Stills FAQ:
| [1.1.10] My renderer can do lens flare, motion blur, etc.--is that legal?
|      Yes, generally. If it is something that the renderer does as part of
| producing the image, and not something you run against the image file as a
| separate process, then it is legal. The judges look very closely at such
| effects, however, so use them with caution.
| [1.1.11] Exactly what do you mean by "post-processing"?
|      That means running any image-manipulation program on the image after it
| is rendered. Paint programs, photo manipulation programs, and the like are
| generally not allowed, except for a few explicit exceptions. We want the
| image to be the output of a renderer, not a human or special-effects
| program. One guideline that has been mentioned is that any process which
| affects every pixel in the image is usually okay, but that's not a hard and
| fast rule--it's just used to encompass gamma correction, resizing,
| conversion to JPEG format, and so forth, all of which are legal. Another
| guideline is, don't do anything to the image that you wouldn't be prepared
| to do for every frame of a 30-minute animation.
|
| Since the post-processing is done after the rendering, but it is done by the
| renderer, it would appear that this issue is up to the IRTC Admins.
|
| Mark
|
|

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner wrote:

> it's just used to encompass gamma correction, resizing,
> conversion to JPEG format, and so forth, all of which are legal. Another
> guideline is,

    Gamma correction is a bad term I picked up. It is better termed gamma
normalization. It will generally improve a scene's viewability that is too hard
to get exactly right in POV. But it will also turn a moonlit scene into a
daylight scene.


> don't do anything to the image that you wouldn't be prepared
> to do for every frame of a 30-minute animation.

    Photoshop now has scripting. Time to rephrase the rule.

--
The question is not, "Who will let me do it?"
The question is, "Who will stop me?"
Offering an apology is easier than getting permission.

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:

> Ah, but it's a post =rendering= process actually, and not really a post process
> per se.  Since it is using the scene file info to do it then I can't see why it
> wouldn't be legal for IRTC submission.  It's very much the same as any other
> in-render effect only done separately, kind of like moving the reflection
> raytracing outside of the usual loop and applying it afterward (if that was a
> possibility).

    But where does on draw the line?

Here? <img src="http://giwersworld.org/artii/nraol.jpg"> All Photoshop and plugins.


> That's how I see it anyway.  Well, 'soft_glow'  could very well be illegal since
> it doesn't use scene info I suppose.  If anything I believe Nathan Kopp will
> have to be the ultimate judge on this by giving an account as to what is done in
> a raytrace/rendering sort of way or not.  Same about the proposed lens flare
> post process and whatever else of future versions that might be done in this
> fashion.

    I do question lens flare by someone else's macro vice from PS or the like. What
is really the difference? I am certain a descent image can be made entirely of OPMs,
other people's macros. How to score that? 1 technical I would guess  but the rest?

--
The question is not, "Who will let me do it?"
The question is, "Who will stop me?"
Offering an apology is easier than getting permission.

Post a reply to this message