Well done.
Thought those were roots of the tree until I re-read the title.  Subtle.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:05:20 -0400, Gilles Tran quoth:

> - Rendered with povray 3.5

Personally, I'm starting to suspect you of being a professional
photographer rather than a CG artist ;-)

Outstanding job!

-- 
Mark

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> - Rendered with povray 3.5

I can't believe that I have the same software :-p

I am yet to convince myself that the Wet Bird is not a
photograph,
and here you are, sending one more masterpiece!

-Kedar

Post a reply to this message

Very, very impressive, both artistically and technically!

As much as I love the dense foreground, I really admire the colour choices
of the background (the distant hills, the fields).

Living next to a lake, I have to say you got the reflections just right on
the 'pond'... the disturbance (what appears to be less frequent in some
areas when compared to others) is just like that caused by small breaths of
low wind across the surface.

The image looks really nice on my monitor (not dark and not washed out), you
should be very proud of this one!

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff wrote:
> 
> That happens in real life with ponds like this...to me, it's a nice
> little detail that makes it look very realistic.
> 
> [...]

Since this is really a minor issue i don't want to make much ado about it,
but i disagree on this.  Such abrupt changes only occur with relatively
strong and rapidly changing wind.  Also the waves here are quite high
frequency, something also indicating strong wind effect.  The plants in
the picture imply it is quite calm.  Maybe some concentric structures
produced by bubbles or animals would be a nice detail.

Another thing on the water: The reflection seems quite strong at the steep
angles in the foreground, maybe some transparency and scattering media
would be a good idea.

But again, these are only minor issues, the whole composition looks really
nice.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 15 Jul. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

> More likely we'll be able to purchase the poster from zazzle... most of
his works are
> worth it though. :-)

Hi
Thanks for the comments. There'll be a zazzle poster but I'll also make
available a larger version at 1200*1600 on my site. In fact I'll try to put
1200*1600 versions of the images from now on (there's the "Wet bird"
already).

BTW, Jonathan, would it be possible for you to upload the latest version of
your scatter macro to povray.binaries.scene-files ? I wanted it for somebody
in the French group some time ago and your site was down :( I finally found
it in a zip file at irtc.org (thanks google) but I'm not sure it's the
latest version... and it's a great macro !

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3d3c84db$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Samuel Benge" <sbe### [at] caltelcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D3### [at] caltelcom...
> You've made me reconsider using low radiosity settings in my scenes.
> With settings as low as you mentioned a person can get away with a lot.

In a case like this it works quite well because the rad artefacts are lost
in the general chaos. For the large version, though, I'll have to make some
critical decisions and re-render some parts with better settings. Still,
what you've obtained so far without radiosity is quite amazing.

> As for the media in the leaves.... it seems a double_illuminate_map
> shouldn't be too hard for those patch-makers looking for a project. With
> a double_illumimate_map you could make even normal leaves behave
> differently when backlit.. without the need for an inside texture.

That would be a great feature. The media is not all satisfactory here, at
least in the close-ups, and there is some darkening on the edges which is
not realistic. They look less like leaves than like little water balloons. I
tried double_illuminate but it didn't work at all.

> > Nice image, very photorealistic (especially the tree's reflection in the
> water).

Thanks !

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D3D12CC.5D0F2200@gmx.de...
> Since this is really a minor issue i don't want to make much ado about it,
> but i disagree on this.  Such abrupt changes only occur with relatively
> strong and rapidly changing wind.

Well you're probably right about this. I'll explain it by "artistic license"
then :-)

> Maybe some concentric structures
> produced by bubbles or animals would be a nice detail.

They almost made it in the picture in fact but I got lazy. Perhaps I'll make
some tests and add them afterwards. The frog could really use some
concentric circles.

> Another thing on the water: The reflection seems quite strong at the steep
> angles in the foreground, maybe some transparency and scattering media
> would be a good idea.

Another artistic license there. I started with a more realistic approach
like the one you demonstrate on your website, but then I gradually increased
the reflection in the foreground because the bottom part of the image was
much too dark, as I already had this pesky lighting and gamma tolerance
problem to deal with.

> But again, these are only minor issues, the whole composition looks really
> nice.
Thanks !

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> I hope it looks right on your PC or Mac.

  It looks fantastic here. But I must disagree with some other comments: I 
don't see it as "photo-realistic", but more as "photo-realistic painting". 
I inmediately perceive it's not a photo, but I will never suspect it is a 
render... my first impression is that it is a paint job, done perhaps with 
mixed techniques. That's great!

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> a écrit dans le message de
news: chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> The only problem I see is that some of the shadows are too dark,
> especially on the cluster of plants along the fence to the left, the
> shadows are nearly black.

A major issue this one :( particularly if I want to print it (I had trouble
with this before). There are indeed black spots all over the place
(including some of the leaves). Part is due to the post-process I did.
Possibly the only way out would be to ouptut to 48 bit and then use the
compression technique shown by Kari Kivisalo here
http://www.luxlab.com/c/compress.htm
but I don't have Photoshop and my image editor doesn't support 48 bit images
(I haven't tried the Gimp though).

> The only thing that really tips me off that
> this isn't an unprocessed photo is the different tree in the
> reflection...if it was included in a bunch of photos I wouldn't suspect
> it was computer rendered. A really nice job on this one...

Thanks !

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

> Gilles Tran wrote:
>   It looks fantastic here. But I must disagree with some other comments: I
> don't see it as "photo-realistic", but more as "photo-realistic painting".
> I inmediately perceive it's not a photo, but I will never suspect it is a
> render... my first impression is that it is a paint job, done perhaps with
> mixed techniques. That's great!

Bingo ! You got it !

Inspiration came less from photos than from XVIIe landscape paintings.
See Claude Lorrain here http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/c/claude/2/index.html
and Aelbert Cuyp here
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/c/cuyp/aelbert/1/index.html

Still some way to go before I get even remotely there though.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3d3d4277@news.povray.org...

>
> --
> Jaime Vives Piqueres
>
> La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
> http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> A major issue this one :( particularly if I want to print it (I had trouble
> with this before). There are indeed black spots all over the place
> (including some of the leaves). Part is due to the post-process I did.
> Possibly the only way out would be to ouptut to 48 bit and then use the
> compression technique shown by Kari Kivisalo here
> http://www.luxlab.com/c/compress.htm
> but I don't have Photoshop and my image editor doesn't support 48 bit images
> (I haven't tried the Gimp though).
> 

Have you tried:

http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0013390/hcredit/index.html

It's of course not as flexible and universal as Photoshop and GIMP, but
color correction works quite well.  I'm currently planning to add some
function making it possible to merge a picture rendered in stripes on
different machines, currently you have to edit all parts separately and
merge them as 24 bit in a different program in such a case.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 15 Jul. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D3D4CCD.20BF9820@gmx.de...
> Have you tried:
> http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0013390/hcredit/index.html

In fact I tried the focal blur last week (which works great, I'll let you
know once I managed to do something with it) but forgot about the color
correction (note that one great feature would be tone correction aka
"levels" in PS I think, BTW).
So that I'm rendering now a 48-bit version at 480*640 with improved
antialiasing to see how it comes out.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> In fact I tried the focal blur last week (which works great, I'll let you
> know once I managed to do something with it) but forgot about the color
> correction (note that one great feature would be tone correction aka
> "levels" in PS I think, BTW).

You probably mean what's called 'Tonwertkorrektur' in german PS.  It
specifies which colors in the original image are supposed to be white,
black and 50% gray in the result.  I'm not yet sure how this is handled
internally, but it surely would be an interesting function.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 15 Jul. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D3D5F02.BB235644@gmx.de...
> You probably mean what's called 'Tonwertkorrektur' in german PS.  It
> specifies which colors in the original image are supposed to be white,
> black and 50% gray in the result.  I'm not yet sure how this is handled
> internally, but it surely would be an interesting function.

In fact Picture Publisher and the Gimp have it too (so I suppose that the
code is available). It's the function I use most for color correction, as it
is very fast and flexible and gives the user a lot of control (there's also
an "automatic" mode).

G.


--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
> TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 15 Jul. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> In fact Picture Publisher and the Gimp have it too (so I suppose that the
> code is available). It's the function I use most for color correction, as it
> is very fast and flexible and gives the user a lot of control (there's also
> an "automatic" mode).

All right, i will have a look at the GIMP source (although it's really not
what i would call 'easy reading' ;-)).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 15 Jul. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Simply outstanding. Well beyond my humble comprehension of POV-Ray.

Gilles, you're probably the best POV'er of all times! Gotta love oyonale...

Salute!

Post a reply to this message

Another very interesting color correction variant has been added to
Photoshop 7. They call it Auto Color. Check out this video (Quicktime) to
see what it does. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/movie_nf3.html

Post a reply to this message

That is the sound of my jaw dropping to the floor!

Wow and wow some more!

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3d3c72af@news.povray.org...
> Jpeg compression wasn't too kind on this one :( Well I'll put some
close-ups
> and details on my site sometimes in the next months.
>
> - Rendered with povray 3.5
> - Uses low quality radiosity (count 10 error_bound 1...)
> - Terragen sky
> - Terrain modelled with World Machine (beta)
> http://students.washington.edu/sschmitt/world/ (great prog, BTW)
> - Render time at 1200*1600 takes 6 hours and 600 MB of RAM (P4, 1.7Gz, 1Gb
> RAM)
> - 15000 plants with something like 20 different Xfrog models, all by me
> except the main tree, the small bushes and trees in the background, and
some
> grass. The "evil" tree is by me too. 2000 leaves and twigs in the pond.
> Possibly I'll make some of the plants available later this year.
> - The hardest part was to create the backlit leaves for the main tree. For
> this I had to make "fleshy" leaves and fill them with scattering media. I
> wish I could have done it on all the plants, but either I'll wait for
faster
> machines or find a better solution for backlit translucent material. Some
of
> the flowers were double_illuminated.
> - Dragonflies modelled in Rhino with the demo version (before I bought
it).
> They'll surely look better at the final full res of 6000*8000 which is
> rendering now.
> - The frog is a Poser one. It's almost invisible at 600*800 but it's
> there...
> - Regrets : the lighting. I had a lot of trouble with it, as the original
> image
> is not very gamma-tolerant : it looked ugly on low-gamma monitors and much
> too dark on others. I had to find a middle way so I tweaked the tones in
> post-process and some colors were lost (and there's some extra graininess
> too). I hope it looks right on your PC or Mac.
>
> G.
>
> --
>
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

That is one stunning image. 

-- 
sphere{z*5,1pigment{rgb.5}finish{reflection.3specular.5}}box{<-50,-3,-50>
<50,-2,50>pigment{checker/*\__\\__/  * \_\\__*/scale 2}finish{ambient.7}}
light_source/*__\\__\\__\\__\\__\(    ~ )\__\\__\\__\\__\\*/{<2,5,1>*4,1} 
/*\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\~  -/__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\*//* Steve */

Post a reply to this message

AAAAaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgh "Humiliator" strikes again!
I was so much happier when I didn't know your works, Gilles.
No just kidding ;-)
BTW I had an idea for the IRTC dreaming round: a pond, a frog on the shore
looking a its image in the water, and the image was to be the prince
charming's one. But here I swear I can smell the perfume of your flowers.

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D3D12CC.5D0F2200@gmx.de...
> Also the waves here are quite high frequency, something also indicating
strong wind effect.

I don't agree on this point: wavelength depends of the *fetch* i.e. the
length on which the wind interacts with the water. the wavelength increases
with the fetch, so, on small ponds, you only have hi-frequency ripples.
With this surrounding you may have some turbulence caused by plants, some
area beeing exposed to breeze while others are sheltered.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

While I think this is a wonderful image, and it has many technical and
artistic merits, I hope you don't mind me saying that I think you may have
missed your mark by a little. Certainly it is better than I could have done,
but I think that in one area, an important one, you could have done better.

    The "evilness" of the tree was not apparent to me even on a second and
third look until I read the title.

    My eye is draw up by the black lines of the reflection, up the trunk of
the trees to the middle of the branches. Only on a second look did I see
that something was wrong with the reflection and then I spent a minute
wondering what you did wrong to make such distorted reflections. Only after
I decided that you could not have done that by accident did I re-read the
subject line and then look over your comments to see what you were trying to
do.

    I can't imagine how you could fix it, and it may not be broken enough to
worry about, but I thought you might like to know that although I like the
image in general, for me at least, the effect you seem to be trying for is
not as pronounced as it might be.

    The only things I can think of is to lose the small wind ripples that
make the reflection seem distorted (unfortunately, that would diminish the
realism of the water), and/or maybe "evilize" the reflected sky somewhat to
give more clues (but which also destroys the singular nature of the evil
tree). Both bad ideas really, but I hate to critizise without giving
suggestions.

Post a reply to this message

Very, very impressive. A wonderful piece of work yet again.

Kev.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
>     The only things I can think of is [...]
> [...] and/or maybe "evilize" the reflected sky somewhat
> to give more clues (but which also destroys the singular nature of the
> evil tree). 

   I also had the same problems recognizing the "evil part", and my idea 
was the same. Is not that bad idea at all... why only the tree has to have 
an evil side? This idea in fact seems better to me: is the pond who has the 
power to show the evil side of everything it reflects.


-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Marc Jacquier wrote:
> "Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> a écrit dans le message de
news:
> 3D3D12CC.5D0F2200@gmx.de...
> > Also the waves here are quite high frequency, something also indicating
> strong wind effect.
>
> I don't agree on this point: wavelength depends of the *fetch* i.e. the
> length on which the wind interacts with the water. the wavelength
increases
> with the fetch, so, on small ponds, you only have hi-frequency ripples.
> With this surrounding you may have some turbulence caused by plants, some
> area beeing exposed to breeze while others are sheltered.

Not meaning to pick holes in things, but I'd tend to agree.  I have a lake
behind my house here, and the stronger the wind, the choppier and larger the
waves generally become, and seemingly more consistent overall.  On most days
when the wind is quite soft, there are usually a lot more very small ripples
and turbulent 'patches' where the ripples appear to be non-existent or
moving in the opposite direction to the surrounding area.  It's a very
strange effect and seeing Gilles' image reminded me of it immediately (as I
posted in my original reply).  I often sit outside late at night watching
the ripples under the moon light (nights like tonight, actually).

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

One word  "Incredible!", as is all of your work.

Post a reply to this message

This is absolutely stunning!!! How long did it take you?

Gail
--
#macro G(H,S)disc{0z.4pigment{onion color_map{[0rgb<sin(H/pi)cos(S/pi)*(H<6)
cos(S/pi)*(H>6)>*18][.4rgb 0]}}translate<H-5S-3,9>}#end G(3,5)G(2,5.5)G(1,5)
G(.6,4)G(.5,3)G(.6,2)G(1,1)G(2,.5)G(3,.7)G(3.2,1.6)G(3.1,2.5)G(2.2,2.5)G(9,5
)G(8,5.5)G(7,5)G(7,4)G(7.7,3.3)G(8.3,2.7)G(9,2)G(9,1)G(8,.5)G(7,1)///GS

Post a reply to this message

JRG wrote:

> More likely we'll be able to purchase the poster from zazzle... most of his works
are
> worth it though. :-)

Hu, didn't know zazzle. I was precisely looking for a poster for my new 
appartment :-)

-- 
Jul### [at] cnedraorg
http://www.cnedra.org

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3d3d9655@news.povray.org...
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >     The only things I can think of is [...]
> > [...] and/or maybe "evilize" the reflected sky somewhat
> > to give more clues (but which also destroys the singular nature of the
> > evil tree).
>
>    I also had the same problems recognizing the "evil part", and my idea
> was the same. Is not that bad idea at all... why only the tree has to have
> an evil side? This idea in fact seems better to me: is the pond who has
the
> power to show the evil side of everything it reflects.

Well, I tend to enjoy the idea that most of the people who see the image
will just see another pretty (or banal) pond-with-tree-with-flowers image
and that a few of them will have the appropriate delayed reaction. Of
course, it could be made more obvious, with Bill's and yours variants, and
these would make great images, perhaps more meaningful. I played with other
ideas as well, like putting a whole city in the reflection, which could be
an alternate version.
Still I like it more subdued. Why ? Because the interesting thing is that
after all it is obvious. The reflection is large, dark, gnarled, spiky and
leafless, right in the middle, and itself quite disturbing (I took the
inspiration from a sycamore tree by Andrew Wyeth like the following one
http://www.gallery-ii.com/images/wyeth_pa-landscape.jpg).
In fact, I should render the image with the normal reflection so that people
could see the difference (perhaps I'll just do that for the "making of").
There should be no need to pump up the evilness. However, most of us will
miss it - I'd miss it too - because we get confused by the pretty and normal
environment. Let's say that it's fortunate that we have such a positive and
optimistic nature :-)


G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> Well, I tend to enjoy the idea that most of the people who see the image
> will just see another pretty (or banal) pond-with-tree-with-flowers image
> and that a few of them will have the appropriate delayed reaction.

It took me some time to 'see' it.  In fact, I've seen it when I started
wondering 'but why does he called it "dark side" ?'...

Once again, you made it !  You're several years ahead from the best
of us, as should be an artist !  (I hope I didn't hurt your terrible*
modesty...)

(* in the english meaning too...)

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

"Gail Shaw" <gai### [at] mwebcoza> a écrit dans le message de news:
3d3d9dbe@news.povray.org...
> This is absolutely stunning!!! How long did it take you?
Thanks. The render at 1200*1600 took 6 hours so it's 90 min at 600*800. Many
quality parameters have low settings though, particularly antialiasing,
radiosity and area_lights.
Construction time took about two weeks, a good part of it spent on learning
to create xfrog plants and tweaking image maps of bark and leaves. The image
here is a version 10, while most of my IRTC images were version 15 or
higher.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

> --
> #macro G(H,S)disc{0z.4pigment{onion
color_map{[0rgb<sin(H/pi)cos(S/pi)*(H<6)
> cos(S/pi)*(H>6)>*18][.4rgb 0]}}translate<H-5S-3,9>}#end
G(3,5)G(2,5.5)G(1,5)
>
G(.6,4)G(.5,3)G(.6,2)G(1,1)G(2,.5)G(3,.7)G(3.2,1.6)G(3.1,2.5)G(2.2,2.5)G(9,5
> )G(8,5.5)G(7,5)G(7,4)G(7.7,3.3)G(8.3,2.7)G(9,2)G(9,1)G(8,.5)G(7,1)///GS
>
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3D3D12CC.5D0F2200@gmx.de>,
 Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> Since this is really a minor issue i don't want to make much ado about it,
> but i disagree on this.  Such abrupt changes only occur with relatively
> strong and rapidly changing wind.  Also the waves here are quite high
> frequency, something also indicating strong wind effect.  The plants in
> the picture imply it is quite calm.  Maybe some concentric structures
> produced by bubbles or animals would be a nice detail.

I see these quite often on our ponds and a nearby lake without any 
strong wind. They look very realistic to me, right down to the borders 
between the disturbed areas and the mirror-smooth areas. It occurs when 
there is an unsteady breeze or something is blocking the wind causing 
turbulent flow, so it is blowing against the water in some small places 
but not in others. I see nothing in this image that would contradict 
this...the plants and tree seem like just the thing to make it more 
likely.

The frequency of ripples has more to do with the size of the body of 
water and the steadiness of the wind, and the area of water exposed to 
the wind.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d3d47f3$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:

> A major issue this one :( particularly if I want to print it (I had trouble
> with this before). There are indeed black spots all over the place
> (including some of the leaves). Part is due to the post-process I did.
> Possibly the only way out would be to ouptut to 48 bit and then use the
> compression technique shown by Kari Kivisalo here
> http://www.luxlab.com/c/compress.htm
> but I don't have Photoshop and my image editor doesn't support 48 bit images
> (I haven't tried the Gimp though).

With MegaPOV you might have been able to get something with the 
raw_image and curves post_process filters...I made them specifically for 
dynamic range compression, and the precision is better than 48 bit (the 
raw_image filter restores the full float precision colors). Don't know 
of any workaround for 3.5 though, you would have to use an external 
program.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" wrote:
> Hi
> Thanks for the comments. There'll be a zazzle poster but I'll also make
> available a larger version at 1200*1600 on my site. In fact I'll try to put
> 1200*1600 versions of the images from now on (there's the "Wet bird"
> already).

That's great to hear. Looking forward to your next update.

> BTW, Jonathan, would it be possible for you to upload the latest version of
> your scatter macro to povray.binaries.scene-files ? I wanted it for somebody
> in the French group some time ago and your site was down :( I finally found
> it in a zip file at irtc.org (thanks google) but I'm not sure it's the
> latest version... and it's a great macro !

It wasn't down... it simply wasn't there anymore. They changed it into
http://digilander.libero.it/jrgpov/.
The macro is there but... I had a second look at it and *horror*... well when I wrote
it I didn't even know what programming mean, it's a real mess written *on the fly* as
ideas flowed from my mind... I'm not going to post it here because of this.


--
Jonathan.

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff wrote:

> raw_image filter restores the full float precision colors). Don't know 
> of any workaround for 3.5 though, you would have to use an external 
> program.

Wouldn't POV-Ray itself be able to read a 48 bits PNG ?

(you render in a 48 bits PNG, you use it as an image_map
  that fits exactly the screen, and you process it using
  eval_pigment and reconsturct the image with colored
  boxes)

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d3c72af@news.povray.org> , "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:

> They'll surely look better at the final full res of 6000*8000 which is
> rendering now.

What render time do you expect for it?  A week?

> - Regrets : the lighting. I had a lot of trouble with it, as the original
> image
> is not very gamma-tolerant : it looked ugly on low-gamma monitors and much
> too dark on others. I had to find a middle way so I tweaked the tones in
> post-process and some colors were lost (and there's some extra graininess
> too). I hope it looks right on your PC or Mac.

It looks good on Macs.

I have to say the image looks really, really great!!!  Nearly perfect,
except imho the shadow of the tree seems like it is a bit to far to the
left.  Maybe moving the shadow about ten pixels to the right would make it
look even better...

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> a écrit dans le message de news:
3d3dbc1e@news.povray.org...
> What render time do you expect for it?  A week?

About it. Less in fact, but I'll probably have to re-render little parts of
it with better radiosity settings and area_light settings.

> I have to say the image looks really, really great!!!  Nearly perfect,
> except imho the shadow of the tree seems like it is a bit to far to the
> left.  Maybe moving the shadow about ten pixels to the right would make it
> look even better...

Hmm, yes, you're right. I can still change it (still 60% to go on the large
render).

BTW, the main tree has its own light group with its own sun at a different
position that the main one, so that I could get both some direct light on
the trunk (from the light_group) and a highlight on the water (from the main
light)...

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen wrote:
> Christopher James Huff wrote:
>
> > raw_image filter restores the full float precision colors). Don't know
> > of any workaround for 3.5 though, you would have to use an external
> > program.
>
> Wouldn't POV-Ray itself be able to read a 48 bits PNG ?
>
> (you render in a 48 bits PNG, you use it as an image_map
>   that fits exactly the screen, and you process it using
>   eval_pigment and reconsturct the image with colored
>   boxes)
>
> Fabien.

Isn't this a case of 'When all you have is a hammer everything starts to
look like a nail'? ;)
It sounds like a brilliant idea, still.

--
-Jide

Post a reply to this message

In article <3D3### [at] skynetbe>,
 Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:

> Wouldn't POV-Ray itself be able to read a 48 bits PNG ?
> 
> (you render in a 48 bits PNG, you use it as an image_map
>   that fits exactly the screen, and you process it using
>   eval_pigment and reconsturct the image with colored
>   boxes)

If you really want to do image processing of a large image in the POV 
language...it will be very, very slow.

A better solution: use the image_map on a plane or box with ambient 1, 
an orthographic camera and no light sources, and the curves post_process 
filter. The raw_image filter won't be of any help here, since the data 
has already been put through a PNG file. You will lose data for color 
values >1, and will only get 16 bits per channel instead of the float 
precision the post_process filters have access to...basically, MegaPOV 
will be as limited as any other external program.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:19:34 +0200, Fabien Mosen
<fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:

>Wouldn't POV-Ray itself be able to read a 48 bits PNG ?
>
>(you render in a 48 bits PNG, you use it as an image_map
>  that fits exactly the screen, and you process it using
>  eval_pigment and reconsturct the image with colored
>  boxes)

I'd rather use a function pigment for that - much faster than parsing
a gazillion boxes.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

> I'd rather use a function pigment for that - much faster than parsing
> a gazillion boxes.

To use boxes for postwork within Pov-Ray is exactly what I did in my last
two IRTC entries.
The method is awfully slow (compared with photoshop) and needs huge amounts
of memory
(a 1200*1600 render would need more than 1 GB !).

How can I use functions instead of pigments? I tried and failed so far.


Norbert

Post a reply to this message

In article <4vnrju8p4dnopfhb4ckuc4narsdevjg2j5@4ax.com>,
 Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:

> >(you render in a 48 bits PNG, you use it as an image_map
> >  that fits exactly the screen, and you process it using
> >  eval_pigment and reconsturct the image with colored
> >  boxes)
> 
> I'd rather use a function pigment for that - much faster than parsing
> a gazillion boxes.

That's a good idea...you could do the same thing as the post_process 
curves filter without needing the patch, though it would still have the 
limitations of what you can put through a PNG file. A image_map pigment 
function run through three spline functions and combined into the final 
image with an average pigment would do the trick:

#declare imgFn = function {pigment {image_map {...}}}
#declare rCurveFn = function {spline {...}}
#declare gCurveFn = function {spline {...}}
#declare bCurveFn = function {spline {...}}

...
pigment {average
    pigment_map {
        [pigment {function {rCurveFn(imgFn(x, y, z).red).x}
            color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 rgb < 3, 0, 0>]}}]
        [pigment {function {gCurveFn(imgFn(x, y, z).green).x}
            color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 rgb < 0, 3, 0>]}}]
        [pigment {function {bCurveFn(imgFn(x, y, z).blue).x}
            color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 rgb < 0, 0, 3>]}}]
    }
}

I used three splines here to make it easier to adjust each channel 
separately, since splines use vectors you should be able to use just one 
spline. You could also do things like use a spline value to scale the 
color according to the brightness of the color.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 23:05:20 +0200, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
> - Rendered with povray 3.5

Respect!

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff wrote:

> That's a good idea...you could do the same thing as the post_process 
> curves filter without needing the patch, though it would still have the 
> limitations of what you can put through a PNG file.

What's the bit-depth limit ?

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3D3### [at] skynetbe>,
 Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:

> > That's a good idea...you could do the same thing as the post_process 
> > curves filter without needing the patch, though it would still have the 
> > limitations of what you can put through a PNG file.
> 
> What's the bit-depth limit ?

48-bits per pixel, which I assume is 16 bits per component. 65536 levels 
per component, in the range 0-100%. The C "float" type, which POV uses 
for color components internally, is at minimum a 32-bit floating point 
number, which can handle a huge range of values and is much more precise 
in the 0-1 range.
Plus you might run into problems with gamma correction.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

This is excellent... as usual.







Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Apache wrote:

> Yes, please render a 80000 x 60000 pixel version for me.

Jesus, how big are you going to print it?


-- 
___     ______________________________________________
  | \     |_         website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
  |_/avid |ontaine           email: <dav### [at] faricynet>

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 

Ye gods.  Put this in your resume when you apply to work for
Dreamworks or Pixar.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Gosh. I feel more humble than usual now.
Feels serene in spite of the tree's reflection.

Post a reply to this message

> - Regrets : the lighting.
Jeez, man -- stop apologizing!  You're giving Norbert Kern a run for his 
money (and leaving the rest of us unsticking our jaws from the floor :)!

(I haven't had a chance to *touch* my copy of 3.5 since I installed 
it... whaah. :_(

- Kevin R.

Gilles Tran wrote:
> Jpeg compression wasn't too kind on this one :( Well I'll put some close-ups
> and details on my site sometimes in the next months.
> 
> - Rendered with povray 3.5
> - Uses low quality radiosity (count 10 error_bound 1...)
> - Terragen sky
> - Terrain modelled with World Machine (beta)
> http://students.washington.edu/sschmitt/world/ (great prog, BTW)
> - Render time at 1200*1600 takes 6 hours and 600 MB of RAM (P4, 1.7Gz, 1Gb
> RAM)
> - 15000 plants with something like 20 different Xfrog models, all by me
> except the main tree, the small bushes and trees in the background, and some
> grass. The "evil" tree is by me too. 2000 leaves and twigs in the pond.
> Possibly I'll make some of the plants available later this year.
> - The hardest part was to create the backlit leaves for the main tree. For
> this I had to make "fleshy" leaves and fill them with scattering media. I
> wish I could have done it on all the plants, but either I'll wait for faster
> machines or find a better solution for backlit translucent material. Some of
> the flowers were double_illuminated.
> - Dragonflies modelled in Rhino with the demo version (before I bought it).
> They'll surely look better at the final full res of 6000*8000 which is
> rendering now.
> - The frog is a Poser one. It's almost invisible at 600*800 but it's
> there...
> - Regrets : the lighting. I had a lot of trouble with it, as the original
> image
> is not very gamma-tolerant : it looked ugly on low-gamma monitors and much
> too dark on others. I had to find a middle way so I tweaked the tones in
> post-process and some colors were lost (and there's some extra graininess
> too). I hope it looks right on your PC or Mac.
> 
> G.
> 
> --
> 
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message