Hi, this is just my three day modeling and two day rendering test, it's not
perfect, but I won't render it again for awhile.

"Rendering time 2d 19h 31m 03s."

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'vesilasi.jpg' (36 KB)

Preview of image 'vesilasi.jpg'

Hm. How about stats like photon-spacing, radiosity-values,
max_trace_level...?
Triangles in scene, or blob? Isosurface? Image-maps?

Elias Penttilä wrote:

> Hi, this is just my three day modeling and two day rendering test, it's not
> perfect, but I won't render it again for awhile.
>
> "Rendering time 2d 19h 31m 03s."

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

How about the source? I'm especially interested in your glass material
settings.

John

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3CD938DE.44E0E9C3@gmx.de...
> Hm. How about stats like photon-spacing, radiosity-values,
> max_trace_level...?
> Triangles in scene, or blob? Isosurface? Image-maps?

Only normal primitives with CSG and the superellipsoids on the back wall and
wooden panels below the table. The room is a small closed room with one
CSG-carved window that you can see in the reflection. Small bubbles in the
water are randomly placed on the glass surface. Lighting is a combination of
a bluish sky_sphere and a bright yellowish area_light.
Photons were used only on the glass, water and table with default settings
and a count of 1000000 (one million). Radiosity with the default settings
except count 100, error_bound 1.0 and recursion_limit 5. I got some black
areas on the glass as I began with this scene, so I upped the
max_trace_level to 100 with no notable speed decrease.

Post a reply to this message

"jkb" <joh### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3cd93a7b@news.povray.org...
> How about the source? I'm especially interested in your glass material
> settings.

Basic glass.inc definitions and the ones I used were:
pigment { Col_Glass_Clear }
finish { F_Glass8 }
interior { I_Glass1 }

The source will be posted to p.b.s-f.

Post a reply to this message

Elias Penttilä wrote:
> Hi, this is just my three day modeling and two day
> rendering test, it's not perfect, but I won't render
> it again for awhile.

Bah, it's a photo.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/z/9/z993126

-----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

I enhanced/modified the image a little using Photoshop, see if you like it!
I am also going to try rendering it larger on a 1 GHz machine over the
entire weekend and performing the same corrections..

Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'vesilasi-modified.jpg' (182 KB)

Preview of image 'vesilasi-modified.jpg'

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cda8a57@news.povray.org...
> I enhanced/modified the image a little using Photoshop, see if you like
it!
> I am also going to try rendering it larger on a 1 GHz machine over the
> entire weekend and performing the same corrections..

Very nice! I especially like the bluish water/liquid. It makes the image
sharper. Maybe I should've toned down the yellow light a little and used a
little bit less focal blur. Waiting to see your render.

Post a reply to this message

Here is what I did:

I auto-leveled/color corrected it, which removed the slightly "yellowish"
cast. Then, I selected just the glass. I did a hue adjustment on the glass
selection to make it more natural looking. Then I slightly desaturated the
rest of the scene (i.e. scene minus glass) to make the glass stand out more.
Finally, I applied an unsharp-mask to sharpen the entire image ever so
slightly.

What I did not do, but will for the larger scene:

The photon effects need a hue adjustment, as well, to be more inline with
the new hue of the glass. I am wondering if all of this could be made easier
by simply changing the glass color to a shade of blue, but in any case it
did come out looking nice, if I do say so myself :) .

Mike

"Elias Penttilä" <eli### [at] kolumbusnospampleasefi> wrote in
message news:3cda8b6c$1@news.povray.org...
> "Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
> news:3cda8a57@news.povray.org...
> > I enhanced/modified the image a little using Photoshop, see if you like
> it!
> > I am also going to try rendering it larger on a 1 GHz machine over the
> > entire weekend and performing the same corrections..
>
> Very nice! I especially like the bluish water/liquid. It makes the image
> sharper. Maybe I should've toned down the yellow light a little and used a
> little bit less focal blur. Waiting to see your render.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I forgot to ask, btw, what +a +r settings did you use for the trace you
posted?

Thanks,

Mike

"Elias Penttilä" <eli### [at] kolumbusnospampleasefi> wrote in
message news:3cda8b6c$1@news.povray.org...
> "Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
> news:3cda8a57@news.povray.org...
> > I enhanced/modified the image a little using Photoshop, see if you like
> it!
> > I am also going to try rendering it larger on a 1 GHz machine over the
> > entire weekend and performing the same corrections..
>
> Very nice! I especially like the bluish water/liquid. It makes the image
> sharper. Maybe I should've toned down the yellow light a little and used a
> little bit less focal blur. Waiting to see your render.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cda8dda$1@news.povray.org...
> I forgot to ask, btw, what +a +r settings did you use for the trace you
> posted?

I use the Windows-GUI and the default that it provides, +A0.3 and default
+R3 I think.

Post a reply to this message

> I forgot to ask, btw, what +a +r settings did you use for the trace you
> posted?

Command line switches,
they can be set in your .ini file or in 3.5 they can be set in the
command-line switch box


+An.n : sets anti-aliasing threshold  to n.n
(can also use Antialias_Threshold=n.n in .ini file)

+Rn : sets aa-depth to level n
(can also use Antialias_Depth=n in .ini file)

also:

+AMn : sets anti-aliasing sampling method to n, only 1 and 2 are valid
(can also use Sampling_Method=n in .ini file)

See the help docs on Tracing Options (section 5.2.6 in v3.5), Anti-Aliasing
options in particular, for more information.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cda8a57@news.povray.org...
> I enhanced/modified the image a little using Photoshop,

    I seem to be seeing this a lot lately, and while not wanting to pick on
you, and not really caring what you do to get the image you want, I still
feel the need to have this said at least once:

    There are PhotoShop groups where people are interested in what you can
do with PhotoShop. If your image cannot be rendered directly in PovRay, then
there is little reason to post it here. If you want help learning how to
render it how you want it that might be one thing, but just asking for
comments on what is essentially a PhotoShop image is not really on topic for
this server, much less this group.

    Adding a sig or something is OK I guess, but other than that,
post-processing is pretty much cheating in my book (as if someone asked).

Post a reply to this message

OK, I'll bite. I view tracing as just one step in a multi-step workflow.
Also, any trace produces a file that can, at the very least be enhanced
with:

unsharp mask
color correction (most traces have color casts)
contrast expansion (auto leveling)

Now the above items are independant of the actual scene. Some scene
dependant things are changes in color or sharpness of objects, exclusively,
and outside the ability of a general traycer, such as what I did to the
image.

Of course, rt purists will disagree with the above, but as with anything
artistic, it's all a matter of taste. I want the best finished product I can
get. If that involves post-processing the image, so be it.

Mike

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3cdaba94@news.povray.org...

>     Adding a sig or something is OK I guess, but other than that,
> post-processing is pretty much cheating in my book (as if someone asked).

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cdac12d@news.povray.org...
> OK, I'll bite. I view tracing as just one step in a multi-step workflow.

    Sure, if that's what you want, but is it on-topic for this server? I
just don't think so. You are free to disagree. They do provide an off-topic
group if you really want to talk about paint programs.

    Philosophically, I see any degree of post processing as similar to
raytracing a sphere and then drawing dragon wings on it and saying "Look
what I raytraced!". That's fine if you want a dragon and can't find the time
or talent to model one, but it's not raytracing and it is -definitely- not
PovRay.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> post-processing is pretty much cheating in my book

Try to find an advanced or professional CG artist who doesn't
use post-processing and multiple tools. Compositing, layering,
filtering etc. are techniques frequently used by professionals.

POV-Ray generates good quality raw material to be processed and
refined by other tools into finished product.


_____________
Kari Kivisalo

Post a reply to this message

Well, you're discussing this in terms of black and white and I am discussing
this in terms of shades of gray. I took a POV Ray-Traced image and did some
color adjustment and sharpening. I would still call it a 99% POV image and
therefore revelant to this group. What percentage is relevant and what
percentage is not is, of course, a matter of opinion.

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3cdad121$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
> news:3cdac12d@news.povray.org...
> > OK, I'll bite. I view tracing as just one step in a multi-step workflow.
>
>     Sure, if that's what you want, but is it on-topic for this server? I
> just don't think so. You are free to disagree. They do provide an
off-topic
> group if you really want to talk about paint programs.
>
>     Philosophically, I see any degree of post processing as similar to
> raytracing a sphere and then drawing dragon wings on it and saying "Look
> what I raytraced!". That's fine if you want a dragon and can't find the
time
> or talent to model one, but it's not raytracing and it is -definitely- not
> PovRay.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Kari Kivisalo" <pro### [at] luxlabcom> wrote in message
news:3CDAD495.7F155220@luxlab.com...
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > post-processing is pretty much cheating in my book
>
> Try to find an advanced or professional CG artist who doesn't
> use post-processing and multiple tools. Compositing, layering,
> filtering etc. are techniques frequently used by professionals.

    Try posting a povray image on a photoshop forum.

> POV-Ray generates good quality raw material to be processed and
> refined by other tools into finished product.

    I don't think you will find me arguing with that. Every single one of my
professional images were handled by other tools to varying degrees. But you
won't find them posted here. In principal, I think it is a bad idea to start
having more and more post-processed images archived on a povray server.
Slippery slope and all that.

    If you are posting here to show what you can do with povray, you should
do it with povray. I haven't re-read the AUP, but I will bet that there is
something about this server being maintained so as to demonstrate the
features and quality of PovRay, not PhotoShop.

Post a reply to this message

"TinCanMan" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3cda98ba$1@news.povray.org...
> > I forgot to ask, btw, what +a +r settings did you use for the trace you
> > posted?

Oops, sorry, I read your post too quickly.
I thought you were asking what they were.

Just more literature from the unwanted education department.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

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.

Mike

"Elias Penttilä" <eli### [at] kolumbusnospampleasefi> wrote in
message news:3cd92f0b@news.povray.org...
> Hi, this is just my three day modeling and two day rendering test, it's
not
> perfect, but I won't render it again for awhile.
>
> "Rendering time 2d 19h 31m 03s."
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

>     Philosophically, I see any degree of post processing as similar to
> raytracing a sphere and then drawing dragon wings on it and saying "Look
> what I raytraced!". That's fine if you want a dragon and can't find the
time
> or talent to model one, but it's not raytracing and it is -definitely- not
> PovRay.

So would you be happy if we put up a povray.purist group?

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> "Kari Kivisalo" <pro### [at] luxlabcom> wrote in message
> news:3CDAD495.7F155220@luxlab.com...
>> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>>>
>>> post-processing is pretty much cheating in my book
>>
>> Try to find an advanced or professional CG artist who doesn't
>> use post-processing and multiple tools. Compositing, layering,
>> filtering etc. are techniques frequently used by professionals.
>
>     Try posting a povray image on a photoshop forum.

and say lookie at this!! its rendered with povray, and i tweaked the colours
with photoshop Hurrah!!. there going to love that


--
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

Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> post-processing is pretty much cheating in my book

I have post processes EVERY image I have ever rendered to some degree.

I do not have the cpu power, time, or patience to re run a several day
render just for the sake of a couple of minor flaws that can be fixed in few
minutes.

often recreating some of the post tweaks in pure povray can significantly up
the render time. its hard choosing between an extra day (or 2) rendering, or
a few mins in photoshop.

A prime example. I recently rendered some items on a plain with blured
reflections and unfortunatly after a 2 DAY RENDER the resulting blur was
lumpy. photoshop fixed the offending lumpy spotchy mess in 5 minutes, viola
perfect image. There is not a cats chance in hell i was going to hike some
of the renders setting up and re run it.

Dont force us all to conform to your use of povray, its just one of many
tools.

(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

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] luxlabcom> 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.

"Elias Penttilä" <eli### [at] kolumbusnospampleasefi> wrote in
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

"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote :
>
> Some of Gilles' work is post-processed:

    Much of it is not. Much of his best work is not. Even the page you
reference is not what he presents as his finished version. And every image
he has posted here, I am willing to bet, is not post processed.

    Again, I have never said that there is not a use for post-processing.
Just that that use is not preparation of images for posting here.

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mik### [at] wwacom> wrote in message
news:3cdbd342$1@news.povray.org...
> 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

I said I was wondering, not complaining.  Sorry I wasn't clear.  I do not have
Photoshop and am unaware of its capabilities.
Didn't know that a compressed image could be "decompressed", as it were.

I can understand your defensive stance, though, since you appear to be under attack in
this thread!  ;-)

Personally, I don't care if you enhance every posted image if you have the time and
inclination.  I would take it as a
challenge to attempt the
enhancement within POV itself.  Some people may not care much for that, though.  Some
would rather see original works posted
here.

--
Robert Chaffe
http://www.donovansweb.com/~chaffe/

Post a reply to this message

=?utf-8?Q?Elias_Penttil=C3=A4?= wrote:
>Hi, this is just my three day modeling and two day rendering test, it's not
>perfect, but I won't render it again for awhile.
>
>"Rendering time 2d 19h 31m 03s."
>


What code did you use for water? I couldn't make my glass of water lighter.

Thanks,
Connie

Post a reply to this message