"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

Regarding space on the server, if the "owners" mind my "waste" of it, they
will comment. It's their judgement call, not yours. Also, I think your
argument is moot, because it can be extended to the use of tools outside
POVRAY to prepare the scene files (i.e. Moray and other quick modeling tools
vs. hand-scripting), granted that the output would still be pure.

Let's end this argument with my take in that post-processing is allowed as
long as it does not add scene elements (i.e. flares, objects, etc...) and is
limited to color-adjustment/sharpening/contrast types of actions. I think
this is about as minimal a change to POV produced images as necessary for
their use in anything outside of "wow this render looks cool" and therefore
should be allowed on this group. I am going to predicate my statement with
my belief that the original image should always be posted along with any
post-processed image.

If the preceding is against group policy, the group owners can speak up!

Mike

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3cdb43b9$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "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

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cdbd784$1@news.povray.org...
> Regarding space on the server, if the "owners" mind my "waste" of it, they
> will comment.

    They have -often- commented on the space issue.

> Let's end this argument

    Well, the only "argument" I have is with the people who have tried to
make this about whether post-processing is a valid method for professional
image production. That's a red herring and I have little patience for that.

    Other than that, I simply express my opinion that a povray server and a
povray images group should try to stick to povray images that can be
produced and reproduced with povray. There are computer-graphics forums for
other images. There are free web pages for those who want to display their
skill (or lack of it) with other programs. This server, with it's limited
resources that are paid for by individuals who don't like to complain,
deserves some consideration.

    If I don't say it, and it needs to be said every now and then, it's
unlikely that anyone else will until it gets way out of hand.

> I think
> this is about as minimal a change to POV produced images as necessary for
> their use in anything outside of "wow this render looks cool"

    You might think that with the number of post processed images on this
group lately (It seems to be a few newbies in the last month or so), but a
quick perusal of some povray galleries or even the past images on this
server will enlighten you. We all have a lot more to learn about PovRay and
posts of images that are "improved" with paint programs will not help that
process. Almost every change I have seen could easily have been done with
povray itself. Yes, it would have taken more time and/or skill than the
posters wanted to put into it, but it could have been done.

    Povray, by itself, is capable of producing finished works. Most of the
people who use povray (including, for the most part, myself) are not capable
of producing finished works with it. The growing few who can do that sort of
work with PovRay have my respect and I look forward to seeing their images
and learning how they did it. I already know how to adjust an image with
filters. If I need a refresher in the basics of PhotoShop, I know where to
go. If I wanted to download huge images for that purpose, I would not be
downloading a povray.images group.

    For instance, you just posted "A very interesting scene, please post the
POV source, if you don't mind." There are several recent images for which
this request would be nearly useless. The source will not produce the image.

    Posts to povray.binaries.images should be about povray images.

    Seems simple to me.

Post a reply to this message

OK, I can agree with most of what you said except for one point:

"Povray, by itself, is capable of producing finished works."

This is simply untrue. There is no way that POVRAY can produce images that
cannot be improved with an unsharp-mask, particularly if anti-aliasing is
used. No amount of tuning can enhance this, short of adding unsharp-mask
algorithms directly into POV.

Another point is tonal adjustment, on the order of what you can do with
curves in Photoshop. It would be nearly impossible, either in time or space,
to perform the sort of minute adjustments possible with Photoshop's
levels/curves, for example to selectively lighten a certain tonal range, all
else being equal.

Outside of the above two points, I suppose that given an infinite amount of
time for fudging the scene, anything else is possible.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cdbfb9a$1@news.povray.org...
> OK, I can agree with most of what you said except for one point:
>
> "Povray, by itself, is capable of producing finished works."
>
> This is simply untrue.

    I suggest you look at some of Gilles work. http://www.oyonale.com/

> There is no way that POVRAY can produce images that
> cannot be improved

    Matter of opinion I expect, but assuming you are objectively correct, I
would answer yes, you can "improve" any image, even most of the finished
works I have seen. I expect that there are improvements that could be made
to the great classic paintings. That does not stop them from being finished
works.

    Povray is quite capable of producing finished works of professional,
fine art quality. By itself. I have even managed a few myself. But, if you
depend on post-processing, you will never discover that.

Post a reply to this message

I just tried a few of the scenes on his page, and the ones I tried showed
varying improvement from simple auto-contrast/unsharp mask operations. Why
he didn't post process them is beyond me, other than from a purist
standpoint.

Mike


"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3cdc0060$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
> news:3cdbfb9a$1@news.povray.org...
> > OK, I can agree with most of what you said except for one point:
> >
> > "Povray, by itself, is capable of producing finished works."
> >
> > This is simply untrue.
>
>     I suggest you look at some of Gilles work. http://www.oyonale.com/

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cdc1ea1@news.povray.org...
> I just tried a few of the scenes on his page, and the ones I tried showed
> varying improvement

    Again, probably a matter of opinion. The thing is, his images are fine
art quality finished works accomplished entirely with povray.

    I just checked and the Mona Lisa looks better with a little unsharpening
too.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3cdc0060$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
> news:3cdbfb9a$1@news.povray.org...
> > OK, I can agree with most of what you said except for one point:
> >
> > "Povray, by itself, is capable of producing finished works."
> >
> > This is simply untrue.
>
>     I suggest you look at some of Gilles work. http://www.oyonale.com/

Some of Gilles' work is post-processed:
http://www.oyonale.com/ressources/english/mkofwetbird9.htm

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