 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't know, maybe I'm just too suspicious..... but I'm wondering how did
you get those color shifts? See attachment for a blowup of a small part of
your image that shows what I'm talking about.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'light_blowup.jpg' (43 KB)
Preview of image 'light_blowup.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Timothy R. Cook" <z993126bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3e5bfb28$1@news.povray.org...
> Ok, I hate you.
>
> What's the texture on that?
>
texture{Kodak}
Hmm, no further comment from Graphicus. In fairness, the post is called "Testing
1..2.3" - maybe just a test post?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoo com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3e5cd63b@news.povray.org...
> I don't know, maybe I'm just too suspicious..... but I'm wondering how did
> you get those color shifts? See attachment for a blowup of a small part of
> your image that shows what I'm talking about.
>
Those 'color shifts' look like the usual artefacts you did produced by yourself
by resampling the image in RGB mode. I do not see any when blowing the thing
up in P'shops L*a*b mode!
BTW thats one of the reasons I do not work with the gimp.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can see those artifacts even without blowing up anything. I'm using
Outlook Express and can see the image inline in the post. I blew up the
image just to show it. I just did the same thing in Photoshop in Lab mode
and I can still see the color shifting. *If* there are any artifacts it
would be the jpeg compression artifacts, but I have never experienced this
kind of complementing red-green color effects. I'm still very suspicious
that this is not a POV-Ray image, although it is really pretty! And wow.....
if it really *is* done with POV-Ray, I'm absolutely stunned because it looks
so real...!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, maybe I'm getting color blind, my monitor is getting old or whatever,
but where the heck do you see those color shifts? I see definitely none.
But I completely agree with your suspicion.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see them as well with Picture publisher8 and ACDsee, though less
saturated.
Marc
3e5d54fb$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, maybe I'm getting color blind, my monitor is getting old or
whatever,
> but where the heck do you see those color shifts? I see definitely none.
> But I completely agree with your suspicion.
>
> -Ive
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3e5cd63b@news.povray.org...
> I don't know, maybe I'm just too suspicious..... but I'm wondering
how did
> you get those color shifts? See attachment for a blowup of a small
part of
> your image that shows what I'm talking about.
I don't see anything like that, just large pixels when I enlarge it.
Jpeg artifacts are not too bad either.
I'm using OE5.5 viewing inline, but saved pic is still OK viewed in
PSP or Irfanview.
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I see them as well with Picture publisher8 and ACDsee, though less
> saturated.
Hey you guys make me crazy. I was already in fear to be color blind
but sorry, there are defenetely no color artefacts. If you see something
in the original image you really should adjust your crappy monitor because
its red, green and blue cathod ray tubes are no longer in focus (some
monitors have a little screw on the back side to adjust this convergence
error).
And if you blow up the thing by using a resampling filter, those color
shifts are typical artefacts produced by crappy software.
Attached is the blown up version WITHOUT resampling filter, so where
are your blue pixels?
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'lights-blowup.png' (4 KB)
Preview of image 'lights-blowup.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive wrote:
> Attached is the blown up version WITHOUT resampling filter, so where
> are your blue pixels?
I see red on the left, blue on the right.
--
--Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi, it's really me hidind behind that alias. This was a lighting test
but I also wanted to see how photographers and CG hobbyists see it. On a
photography BBS the earlier version got comments like: nice, looks fine,
needs more contrast and sharpness etc. I applied those and other
suggestions to this version.
The scene is just one mesh and 4 4x4 area lights. No radiosity. The
texture is an image map which is also used as bump map with curves
adjustment. Looks boring when rendered directly (30 minutes). Ater 30
minutes in Gimp + Photoshop it looks much nicer. It's a variation of the
rendering by layers method with 2-pass film transfer curve fake.
Professional compositing software probably has this kind of functionality
built-in.
I guess the result is close enough to photorealistic if you have to
dig up a microscope to look for the "cheats" :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
