 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This looks really interesting, hope you're going to share the
method you used. I particularly like the black and white version
that you posted further down.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
11:18pm up 22 days, 21:45, 2 users, load average: 1.13, 1.04, 1.01
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <398cac05@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom>
wrote:
> I managed to create a printer in POV-Ray that can print pictures...
> I tried to print my first POV-Ray image with varius print quality
> settings. The results are the attached images.
> The printer is 100% POV-Script (no hardware), so it can't print on paper,
> but it's interesting nonetheless! ;-)
This would make an interesting post_process filter...
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Steve" wrote:
> This looks really interesting, hope you're going to share the
> method you used.
I made it using MegaPOV. It can take any image as input and give it that
print look. Although, if you want a color print, you need to use another
program to split the input image into four "channels" (cyan, magenta,
yellow, and black).
The basic method I used I have already shared with you before - it's my
Pattern Control Trick in action again! :-)
You can get it here:
http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/3d/goodies/goodies.html
Only difference is that I used an image_pattern instead of a regular
pattern, and I used a layered texture because I needed separate textures for
the four colors.
If anybody needs more help, feel free to ask, and I'll go into more details.
> I particularly like the black and white version
> that you posted further down.
Me too.
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Aug 7)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"annda namon" wrote:
> looks very very post proc to me... is it a photoshop.inc
Not exactly - see my reply to Steve.
Greetings,
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" wrote:
> This would make an interesting post_process filter...
See my reply to Bob Hughes.
Greetings,
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob Hughes" wrote:
> Ingenious. Creative ingenuity at that.
Thanks!
> I sense a post process possibility here.
I'm flattered, but still I have to ask why?
I made this effect for fun, but I can't imagine why anyone would actually
want to use it for one of their images. And what was the PP effect supposed
to be able to do? Make the print effect only? I personally don't like
features that have very limited use only. And a PP effect is not even needed
to get the effect (I accomplished it without), so why would a PP effect be a
good idea?
Thanks anyway! :-)
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <398f27e6@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom>
wrote:
> I made this effect for fun, but I can't imagine why anyone would
> actually want to use it for one of their images.
If you ever want to do a scene of, say, a bug on a newspaper, or any
other scenes with a close-up of printing.
> And what was the PP effect supposed to be able to do? Make the print
> effect only? I personally don't like features that have very limited
> use only.
Actually, I was thinking of it as part of a "dither" post_process, which
could also do other types of dithering in addition to this effect.
> And a PP effect is not even needed to get the effect (I accomplished
> it without), so why would a PP effect be a good idea?
Much faster processing, the ability to have it automatically generated,
an easy way to use it with other filters...
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I second what Chris has said.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>
> > I made this effect for fun, but I can't imagine why anyone
> > would actually want to use it for one of their images.
>
> If you ever want to do a scene of, say, a bug on a newspaper,
> or any other scenes with a close-up of printing.
Ah, but then it would not be the final output image itself that has the
effect, only an object inside it. You would still have to do more than one
render to get the desired result. Then the question remains - which
advantages would a PP effect have over the method I used?
> > And what was the PP effect supposed to be able to do? Make the
> > print effect only? I personally don't like features that have
> > very limited use only.
>
> Actually, I was thinking of it as part of a "dither" post_process,
> which could also do other types of dithering in addition to this
> effect.
Would you add different preprogrammed types of dithering, or would you let
the user have complete control over how the dithering should be calculated?
The method I use gives me complete control.
> > And a PP effect is not even needed to get the effect (I
> > accomplished it without), so why would a PP effect be a good
> > idea?
>
> Much faster processing,
My method is rather fast if it weren't for the AA. It looks *very* bad
without AA. As far as I know PP and AA doesn't work nicely together...
> the ability to have it automatically generated,
I grant you that.
> an easy way to use it with other filters...
Also works with my method.
I'm just trying to say that preprogrammed PP effects aren't the answer to
everything. It will never be as flexible as custom generated effects.
Currently, the PP patch writer has access to some input (image, depth-map,
normal-map, and maybe others), and he can then generate the output based on
these exactly as he wants. What I really would like to see is a patch that
enables the *user* to do just that. Sort of an "ultimate PP patch". If that
were made, many of the current PP effects could be made using #macros and
such instead. The user would have *much* greater control, and the whole idea
of PP in POV-Ray would work much better. I don't know if this is possible,
but if it is, then I certainly hope it will be made. Sure, it would be a
little slower, but that's a price I would gladly pay in order to get greater
control as a user.
Greetings,
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <398fe057@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom>
wrote:
> Ah, but then it would not be the final output image itself that has
> the effect, only an object inside it. You would still have to do more
> than one render to get the desired result. Then the question remains
> - which advantages would a PP effect have over the method I used?
Speed, maybe memory, with later versions the possibility to have
multiple filtered versions output at the same time...
> Would you add different preprogrammed types of dithering, or would
> you let the user have complete control over how the dithering should
> be calculated? The method I use gives me complete control.
Different preprogrammed types, along with user control. Maybe even using
pigments to control portions, like you use.
> My method is rather fast if it weren't for the AA. It looks *very* bad
> without AA. As far as I know PP and AA doesn't work nicely together...
They work fine, as I recall, the problem was fixed.
> Currently, the PP patch writer has access to some input (image,
> depth-map, normal-map, and maybe others), and he can then generate
> the output based on these exactly as he wants.
Color(the image), depth, raw normal, perturbed normal, and intersection
point. Hopefully ray direction will be added, since that could be used
in some very interesting filters(and could add a fourth edge-finding
method to the find_edges filter).
> What I really would like to see is a patch that enables the *user* to
> do just that. Sort of an "ultimate PP patch". If that were made, many
> of the current PP effects could be made using #macros and such
> instead. The user would have *much* greater control, and the whole
> idea of PP in POV-Ray would work much better. I don't know if this is
> possible, but if it is, then I certainly hope it will be made.
I have thought about this, only using isosurface type functions instead
of macros(I still haven't figured out how to call a macro with certain
parameters from within a patch). I just have to figure out how to add
accessor functions for rgb color, surface normal, etc.
> Sure, it would be a little slower, but that's a price I would gladly
> pay in order to get greater control as a user.
Actually, with functions, it might be pretty fast. Certainly faster than
macros...
And using functions gives the user a way to access pixels other than the
current one, which could be a very powerful feature. Some things(loops,
conditionals) are missing, but they might be added to functions in the
future.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
