|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/21 2:40 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Second state of the scene, this time rendered with stochastic aa. Took
> about 16 hours on an i5 laptop (for what it's worth). The quality is
> slightly better, especially where small twigs are concerned. I probably
> could use even better settings but I do not want to wait much longer for
> a render as other things are pressing.
>
> Following Bill's comment about Sam Benge's Luminous Bloom, I dusted the
> facility off, adapted it to latest pov version (gamma and emission) and
> tweaked the settings until I got this somewhat painterly output. I like
> it but am not going to experiment much further at present.
>
Attaching an image of three image to image compares.
Top row your initial post to the one with stochastic aa. The middle row
your _2 post to the luminous bloom result. Bottom row your original post
compared to my first posted bloom filter image (the most blurry one).
Obvious the luminous bloom filter is acting differently than my AA based
bloom filter. Sam's being more luminous (true to its name) and less
blurry. Just now took a quick look at my local copy of his (version 7b).
I'd forgotten his has different modes of bloom (7 of them) plus ability
to cutomize many aspects! His filter is simply much more developed and
flexible with a somewhat different primary aim.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'quiet_lane_compares.jpg' (238 KB)
Preview of image 'quiet_lane_compares.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 11/02/2021 om 11:18 schreef William F Pokorny:
> On 2/11/21 2:40 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Second state of the scene, this time rendered with stochastic aa. Took
>> about 16 hours on an i5 laptop (for what it's worth). The quality is
>> slightly better, especially where small twigs are concerned. I
>> probably could use even better settings but I do not want to wait much
>> longer for a render as other things are pressing.
>>
>> Following Bill's comment about Sam Benge's Luminous Bloom, I dusted
>> the facility off, adapted it to latest pov version (gamma and
>> emission) and tweaked the settings until I got this somewhat painterly
>> output. I like it but am not going to experiment much further at present.
>>
>
> Attaching an image of three image to image compares.
>
> Top row your initial post to the one with stochastic aa. The middle row
> your _2 post to the luminous bloom result. Bottom row your original post
> compared to my first posted bloom filter image (the most blurry one).
>
> Obvious the luminous bloom filter is acting differently than my AA based
> bloom filter. Sam's being more luminous (true to its name) and less
> blurry. Just now took a quick look at my local copy of his (version 7b).
> I'd forgotten his has different modes of bloom (7 of them) plus ability
> to cutomize many aspects! His filter is simply much more developed and
> flexible with a somewhat different primary aim.
>
> Bill P.
I forgot to mention that I used Sam's version 6, which only has his
original bloom. Version 7 (a and/or b) have indeed some more options
which I have not tried.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> On 2/11/21 2:40 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > ...
> Attaching an image of three image to image compares.
> ...
I hope it's not heresy (Thomas) to say that I think the centre and bottom right
"diffs" even more attractive than the actual image. :-)
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 12/02/2021 om 10:36 schreef jr:
> hi,
>
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> On 2/11/21 2:40 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> ...
>> Attaching an image of three image to image compares.
>> ...
>
> I hope it's not heresy (Thomas) to say that I think the centre and bottom right
> "diffs" even more attractive than the actual image. :-)
>
>
> regards, jr.
>
I will bear my cross meekly :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Second state of the scene, this time rendered with stochastic aa...
>
> Following Bill's comment about Sam Benge's Luminous Bloom, I dusted the
> facility off, adapted it to latest pov version (gamma and emission) and
> tweaked the settings until I got this somewhat painterly output. I like
> it but am not going to experiment much further at present.
>
That's a beautiful and pastoral scene; sorry that I had not commented previously
(too many POV-ray tasks and tests taking up my time.) I love the thatched roofs,
and the overall setting (and lighting.) I actually prefer the non-bloom image.
IMO, that effect seems to work/look better when applied to larger or simpler
shapes-- as opposed to 'blooming' lots of fine details, which looks more like an
overall haze. Or maybe that's the intended effect here ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 19/02/2021 om 23:34 schreef Kenneth:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Second state of the scene, this time rendered with stochastic aa...
>>
>> Following Bill's comment about Sam Benge's Luminous Bloom, I dusted the
>> facility off, adapted it to latest pov version (gamma and emission) and
>> tweaked the settings until I got this somewhat painterly output. I like
>> it but am not going to experiment much further at present.
>>
>
> That's a beautiful and pastoral scene; sorry that I had not commented previously
> (too many POV-ray tasks and tests taking up my time.) I love the thatched roofs,
> and the overall setting (and lighting.) I actually prefer the non-bloom image.
> IMO, that effect seems to work/look better when applied to larger or simpler
> shapes-- as opposed to 'blooming' lots of fine details, which looks more like an
> overall haze. Or maybe that's the intended effect here ;-)
>
>
Thank you Kenneth. The bloom version is - as far as I am concerned -
only an excursion out of curiosity following Bill's comment. It was
something I was curious about after all that time. I like its effect but
it is not my favourite either and anyway the scene was not created with
bloom in mind. My real intention was the re-creation of those 19th
century ideas about the country side (sometimes stimulated by underlying
social viewpoints) especially after the invention of paint tubes which
enabled artists to work in the open air.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2021-02-20 3:31 AM (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> My real intention was the re-creation of those 19th
> century ideas about the country side (sometimes stimulated by underlying
> social viewpoints) especially after the invention of paint tubes which
> enabled artists to work in the open air.
It never occurred to me that an invention I take for granted would be so
consequential. But of course in the days when artists had to grind
their own pigments, the paint would have dried out faster outdoors.
My gosh, and stuck inside with all that turpentine!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 20/02/2021 om 21:32 schreef Cousin Ricky:
> On 2021-02-20 3:31 AM (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> about the country side (sometimes stimulated by underlying social
>> viewpoints) especially after the invention of paint tubes which
>> enabled artists to work in the open air.
>
> It never occurred to me that an invention I take for granted would be so
> their own pigments, the paint would have dried out faster outdoors.
>
> My gosh, and stuck inside with all that turpentine!
<grin>
What would Vincent van Gogh have done without tubes...?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Second state of the scene, this time rendered with stochastic aa. Took
> about 16 hours on an i5 laptop (for what it's worth). The quality is
> slightly better, especially where small twigs are concerned. I probably
> could use even better settings but I do not want to wait much longer for
> a render as other things are pressing.
>
> Following Bill's comment about Sam Benge's Luminous Bloom, I dusted the
> facility off, adapted it to latest pov version (gamma and emission) and
> tweaked the settings until I got this somewhat painterly output. I like
> it but am not going to experiment much further at present.
>
> --
> Thomas
Wow Thomas, these are great the composition of the scene is fantastic. Is the
sky an image map? I especially love the effect you have on the ground.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 11/04/2021 om 18:02 schreef s.day:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Second state of the scene, this time rendered with stochastic aa. Took
>> about 16 hours on an i5 laptop (for what it's worth). The quality is
>> slightly better, especially where small twigs are concerned. I probably
>> could use even better settings but I do not want to wait much longer for
>> a render as other things are pressing.
>>
>> Following Bill's comment about Sam Benge's Luminous Bloom, I dusted the
>> facility off, adapted it to latest pov version (gamma and emission) and
>> tweaked the settings until I got this somewhat painterly output. I like
>> it but am not going to experiment much further at present.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Wow Thomas, these are great the composition of the scene is fantastic. Is the
> sky an image map? I especially love the effect you have on the ground.
>
Hey! Long time no see! And thank you indeed.
The sky is not an image map. It is a layered media using Mick
Hazelgrove's clouds macro. See:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.utilities/thread/%3C5f9e664c%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
Yes, the ground is interesting indeed: the result of a complex
pigment_pattern using different image maps.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |