 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> something about this server being maintained so as to demonstrate the
> features and quality of PovRay, not PhotoShop.
Sorry, you are confusing the AUP with IRTC newbie rules.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kari Kivisalo" <pro### [at] luxlab com> wrote in message
news:3CDB01C7.91A2B261@luxlab.com...
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > something about this server being maintained so as to demonstrate the
> > features and quality of PovRay, not PhotoShop.
>
> Sorry, you are confusing the AUP with IRTC newbie rules.
No, I may be wrong about the AUP (since, as I said, I haven't reviewed
it), but I know the difference.
If it were the IRTC, I would not be mentioning or hinting or debating.
It's the rule (and not a "newbie" rule). Here, while it is clearly not a
rule (or the owners would have spoken), it is still a philosophical point
that disserves discussion. What is this server in general and this group in
particular intended for?
Should I post photographs of my living room in which I have hung some
Pov renderings? My south wall is very interesting and couldn't be as nifty
as it is without PovRay.
What level of secondary effort should be posted somewhere else and maybe
a link be announced in off-topic? I think it is "any level". You are free to
disagree, but so far, the opposing point of debate seems to be "I do it all
the time". Not very convincing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see povray almost as a camera on an imaginary world. It works by tracing
rays of light (kinda sorta maybe related to real world camras :) more so
than an image in painter is related to a photo if you get my drift). Most
real world photos go through a lot of post processing and I see no reason
why pov images couldn't benefit as well. The goal of the post processing is
to make the original image as good as possible. I also see no reason why we
should discriminate against post processed images as I think it is part of
the entire image making process. Note however there is an ENORMOUS
difference between post processing and seriously modifying the image through
things like the lens flare filter or other big changes.
Corey
--
schitzo.y0ru.net
blob{threshold#macro _(s,i,g)#if(s)sphere{20*(i-<5,1,-10>)16,1pigment
{rgb 9}}_(s-1i+g,g)#end#end.7_(4x,x)_(2,0y)_(5y*2x)_(5x*6x)_(3<6,
1>2*x)_(2<6,2>4*x)}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And I was just wondering, why is the "enhanced" image post five times the size of the
original image post?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote :
> Most
> real world photos go through a lot of post processing and I see no reason
> why pov images couldn't benefit as well.
I don't know how many more times I can say that the issue I have
is -not- with post processing if that is what you need to make the image you
want.
I have stated that -all- of my professional work has been post processed
in one way or another (mostly to reduce file size and/or color count). Not
only do I get your point, I didn't need you to tell me this to get it, I
have known it for years. If I did need some one to tell me this, the half a
dozen previous posters have already done a fine job of stating the obvious.
The problem, which yet another post ignores, is that this server has
limited space, and post processed images are not on topic. IMO. The AUP does
say that the purpose of this server is to support the users of povray, and
this group is called povray.binary.images, not povray.postprocessed.images.
People should be able to see images here that can be produced with PovRay.
So far, the debate against my real point seems to be to ignore the point
and repeatedly argue against some other point. Not a very convincing
methodology.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> The problem, which yet another post ignores, is that this server
> has limited space, and post processed images are not on topic. IMO.
well as soon as you get on the official team you can make it your first job
to ensure the AUP reflects your IMO. In the mean time, your also wasting
server space by having an off-topic discussion in a binary group.
Followups to pot
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cdaf3e0@news.povray.org...
> OK, I started a 2048x1536 trace this afternoon, with +a0.3 +r3 +q11 and I
> raised the count in the radiosity from 100 to 200. Hopefully, this change
> won't screw anything up. I'll post the image when and if it ever finishes.
BTW, doesn't focal blur disable antialiasing? Interesting to see how the
bubbles are visible in an image of that size.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote >
> well as soon as you get on the official team you can make it your first
job
> to ensure the AUP reflects your IMO. In the mean time, your also wasting
> server space by having an off-topic discussion in a binary group.
Discussion of guidelines for acceptable binaries on this group are not
off topic. Follow-ups reset.
Now the debate points of those who are OK with flooding this group with
Photoshop images descends to squelching discussion. I think I am on to
something here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Because, I used minimal JPEG compression (i.e. best quality) and, as always,
if you think it's not worth the download, don't download. Every civilized
news reader now days shows the file size.
Mike
"Robert Chaffe" <rob### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:3cdb3c92@news.povray.org...
> And I was just wondering, why is the "enhanced" image post five times the
size of the original image post?
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I am interested in seeing how the bubbles come out as well! This was
one of the things I noticed in your post, even more so as I was zooming in,
during the selection for color adjustment in photoshop. BTW, the trace is on
line 625/1536, but as you well know, it is non-linear. The image lines
containing the glass probably take something like 99% of the rendering time.
message news:3cdb8cae@news.povray.org...
> "Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
> news:3cdaf3e0@news.povray.org...
> > OK, I started a 2048x1536 trace this afternoon, with +a0.3 +r3 +q11 and
I
> > raised the count in the radiosity from 100 to 200. Hopefully, this
change
> > won't screw anything up. I'll post the image when and if it ever
finishes.
>
> BTW, doesn't focal blur disable antialiasing? Interesting to see how the
> bubbles are visible in an image of that size.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
