Since it seems that post-processed images are acceptable here, I am
submitting this to the group.  I rendered this as an animation earlier, and
today I was looking through older files that I could rerender and print out
to fill some old frames I had received.  I wanted to rotate the image to
make it fit the frame, and just tweak the contrast a bit, but like usual I
got carried away with enhancing it.  So what do others think about
post-processing ( and these images )?  I personally wouldn't want to bother
with trying to get it perfect in Pov if its so easy to fix up in an image
editing program.  It is a dilemma though because I want to prepare my images
for my webpage, but I also want to present things that were made only with
Pov-Ray.  Oh well.  I posted the original image as well, although resized
from 1400*1400.  It took about three hours to render with photons, spacing
.0035 and without radiosity on an Athlon 1.5 ghz with 512 mb of ddr ram.

-Ben Scheele

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'alternsierp.jpg' (15 KB) Download 'alternsierp-psp.jpg' (59 KB)

Preview of image 'alternsierp.jpg'

Preview of image 'alternsierp-psp.jpg'

Ben T. Scheele <sch### [at] tcumnedu> wrote in message
news:3e1d24c8@news.povray.org...
>     Since it seems that post-processed images are acceptable here, I am
> submitting this to the group.  I rendered this as an animation earlier,
and
> today I was looking through older files that I could rerender and print
out
> to fill some old frames I had received.  I wanted to rotate the image to
> make it fit the frame, and just tweak the contrast a bit, but like usual I
> got carried away with enhancing it.  So what do others think about
> post-processing ( and these images )?  I personally wouldn't want to
bother
> with trying to get it perfect in Pov if its so easy to fix up in an image
> editing program.  It is a dilemma though because I want to prepare my
images
> for my webpage, but I also want to present things that were made only with
> Pov-Ray.  Oh well.  I posted the original image as well, although resized
> from 1400*1400.  It took about three hours to render with photons, spacing
> .0035 and without radiosity on an Athlon 1.5 ghz with 512 mb of ddr ram.
>
> -Ben Scheele
>
>
>

i can't really tell whats been post processed. i'd might buy it as straight
up pov if you told me so. Hehe, I just noticed the original is also
attached.

Maybe just change the background color to that blueish grey and turn on
radiosity? that might get a similar effect.

Or does radiosity not pick up on the background color?

Post a reply to this message

"Ross Litscher" <lit### [at] osuedu> wrote in message
news:3e1db1c4@news.povray.org...

> i can't really tell whats been post processed. i'd might buy it as
straight
> up pov if you told me so. Hehe, I just noticed the original is also
> attached.
>
> Maybe just change the background color to that blueish grey and turn on
> radiosity? that might get a similar effect.
>
> Or does radiosity not pick up on the background color?
>


    Yeah, I guess the changes were subtle, and not easily identifiable as
post-processing techniques.  I might not have been clear in my post, because
the blue one is actually the original.  The highlights are different on the
p.p. version, and it is blurred ever so slightly towards the edges.
Radiosity had a picayune effect on the outcome, so I didn't bother to use it
in the final render.
    Here is an image I made where the post-processing is a lot more obvious.
I used some of the same techniques, but to extremes.  It is my own version
of a sphere sweep, with tens of thousands of translated and scaled spheres.
I just wish I knew how to use while loops.  No, just kidding.  Anyways,
thanks for the input.

-Ben Scheele

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'raytracing_title.jpg' (22 KB) Download 'harmonics-set5-c-anim.jpg' (14 KB)

Preview of image 'raytracing_title.jpg'

Preview of image 'harmonics-set5-c-anim.jpg'

Very nice. I use only PoV to make pictures, but as much because I hate
digging around on the internet for models, maps, etc. than for any other
reason. As far as something like this, the final result speaks for itself.
That is a striking image.

I suppose your only problem with post process might be that some of it is so
imprecise. If you wanted to make an image *similar* but not identical to an
existing PoV+PP image, then you might have a problem matching the blur,
gamma, contrast exactly.

-Shay

"Ben T. Scheele" <sch### [at] tcumnedu> wrote in message
news:3e1d24c8@news.povray.org...

Post a reply to this message

Shay,
    Thanks.  I was struck too to see how much it improved after simply doing
an automatic level adjustment.
    Yeah, I haven't used models or texture maps from other sources either.
I love mathematical patterns and geometric shapes so much that I don't feel
a need to put cars or nudie butts in my scenes.  But don't hold me to that.
    When I said that the post processing saves me time, I didn't mean that I
use it to cut corners, with focal blur for example.  It just saves me from
having to do a lot of finagling with lighting and textures to get the
appearance just right.

-Ben Scheele


"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3e1f36d0@news.povray.org...
> Very nice. I use only PoV to make pictures, but as much because I hate
> digging around on the internet for models, maps, etc. than for any other
> reason. As far as something like this, the final result speaks for itself.
> That is a striking image.
>
> I suppose your only problem with post process might be that some of it is
so
> imprecise. If you wanted to make an image *similar* but not identical to
an
> existing PoV+PP image, then you might have a problem matching the blur,
> gamma, contrast exactly.
>
> -Shay

Post a reply to this message