"Samuel B." <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A proximity pattern test. This type of proximity method can be quite noisy at
> times, depending on the number of samples used. This object got 12 samples and
> the scene took 35 seconds to render using low radiosity and focal blur settings.
>

This is the best example of the denoiser technique that you've posted so far,
IMO. I am amazed that it can discern true noise from your applied ground pattern
that looks *almost like* noise. The foreground detail looks nice and sharp.

It would be interesting to see this same scene denoised but without the original
focal blur-- to see at what point (if any!) in the receding distance the
denoiser might mistake the smaller and smaller actual ground pattern detail for
what it 'perceives' as noise. To see if the denoiser tries to blur it there when
it should not(?)

----
BTW: A few days ago, I downloaded your 2013 file "ToVolume: Object-To-Volume
Conversion and Rendering Process". It also has an interesting and much more
complex 'proximity' file included. I'm sorry to admit that I haven't yet played
around with your amazing proximity pattern :-( I'm still going through that file
to try and understand its workings; much of it is beyond my brain-power, ha.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> It would be interesting to see this same scene denoised but without the original
> focal blur--

Oops, what I meant to say was, *with* focal blur (and the inherent noise of low
blur samples) but so that the depth-of-field is much wider and not soft-focus
(if that makes sense.) In other words, noisy but not actually blurry-looking.
I'm wondering if the denoiser can distinguish the ground pattern in the
foreground from the same un-blurred smaller pattern in the receding distance.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Samuel B." <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > A proximity pattern test. (...)
>
> This is the best example of the denoiser technique that you've posted so far,
> IMO. I am amazed that it can discern true noise from your applied ground pattern
> that looks *almost like* noise. The foreground detail looks nice and sharp.
>
> It would be interesting to see this same scene denoised but without the original
> focal blur-- to see at what point (if any!) in the receding distance the
> denoiser might mistake the smaller and smaller actual ground pattern detail for
> what it 'perceives' as noise. To see if the denoiser tries to blur it there when
> it should not(?)
>
> ----
> BTW: A few days ago, I downloaded your 2013 file "ToVolume: Object-To-Volume
> Conversion and Rendering Process". It also has an interesting and much more
> complex 'proximity' file included. I'm sorry to admit that I haven't yet played
> around with your amazing proximity pattern :-( I'm still going through that file
> to try and understand its workings; much of it is beyond my brain-power, ha.

Hi Kenneth,

The denoiser was able to preserve the ground bump largely thanks to the normal
pass I included. It also helps that the normal and albedo passes can take more
camera blur samples than the final pass, since they are faster to render.

Regarding what it would look like with no obvious focal blur, I'm /guessing/
that the denoiser would smooth out everything under a certain size and color
threshold.

Re: ToVolume. I can't remember which type of proximity technique I used for
that. And I would probably be a bit lost myself, opening up that file after all
these years... that tends to happen with old projects ;)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Op 20/01/2023 om 23:56 schreef Samuel B.:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> "Samuel B." <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> A proximity pattern test. (...)
>>
>> This is the best example of the denoiser technique that you've posted so far,
>> IMO. I am amazed that it can discern true noise from your applied ground pattern
>> that looks *almost like* noise. The foreground detail looks nice and sharp.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see this same scene denoised but without the original
>> focal blur-- to see at what point (if any!) in the receding distance the
>> denoiser might mistake the smaller and smaller actual ground pattern detail for
>> what it 'perceives' as noise. To see if the denoiser tries to blur it there when
>> it should not(?)
>>
>> ----
>> BTW: A few days ago, I downloaded your 2013 file "ToVolume: Object-To-Volume
>> Conversion and Rendering Process". It also has an interesting and much more
>> complex 'proximity' file included. I'm sorry to admit that I haven't yet played
>> around with your amazing proximity pattern :-( I'm still going through that file
>> to try and understand its workings; much of it is beyond my brain-power, ha.
> 
> Hi Kenneth,
> 
> The denoiser was able to preserve the ground bump largely thanks to the normal
> pass I included. It also helps that the normal and albedo passes can take more
> camera blur samples than the final pass, since they are faster to render.
> 
> Regarding what it would look like with no obvious focal blur, I'm /guessing/
> that the denoiser would smooth out everything under a certain size and color
> threshold.
> 
> Re: ToVolume. I can't remember which type of proximity technique I used for
> that. And I would probably be a bit lost myself, opening up that file after all
> these years... that tends to happen with old projects ;)
> 
> Sam
> 

There are/were also your "fastProx" and "nestProx" includes for doing 
proximity patterns. It has been a while since I last used them. They 
tended to be /superseded/ by Edouad Poor's "df3prox-0.95" utility in my 
(slight) personal choice/preference ;-)

However, they are a notable part of my large collection of POV-Ray 
utilities created by the users community. Good opportunity to say a warm 
Thank You.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Il 14/01/2023 01:50, Samuel B. ha scritto:

Thank you, Sam! A different approach can be a stimulus to revisit old 
projects (and I have many, lost in time...).
Btw, a nice and relaxing test image.

Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 20/01/2023 om 23:56 schreef Samuel B.:
> > (...)
> > Re: ToVolume. I can't remember which type of proximity technique I used for
> > that. (...)
>
> There are/were also your "fastProx" and "nestProx" includes for doing
> proximity patterns. It has been a while since I last used them. They
> tended to be /superseded/ by Edouad Poor's "df3prox-0.95" utility in my
> (slight) personal choice/preference ;-)

Hey, whatever gets the job done :D

> However, they are a notable part of my large collection of POV-Ray
> utilities created by the users community. Good opportunity to say a warm
> Thank You.
>
> --
> Thomas

No problem! It's cool that you are keeping a collection going.

I do wish it was easier to search for old things, though. It seems like all the
search engines only keep a partial index of the newsgroups.

Post a reply to this message

Op 03/02/2023 om 01:04 schreef Samuel B.:
> No problem! It's cool that you are keeping a collection going.
> 
It is miscellaneous/monstrous thing ;-)  jr encourages me to make it 
better accessible, but /that/ is a hell of a job, and RL is increasingly 
interfering.... :-/

> I do wish it was easier to search for old things, though. It seems like all the
> search engines only keep a partial index of the newsgroups.
> 
Possibly the major crash POV-Ray experienced some time ago destroyed 
part of the index too? However, I agree with you: items are often 
difficult/impossible to find.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> Possibly the major crash POV-Ray experienced some time ago destroyed
> part of the index too? However, I agree with you: items are often
> difficult/impossible to find.

I think there are ways to get search engines to recrawl/reindex a site over time
- might be worth looking into.

Post a reply to this message

On 2023-02-03 03:17 (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Op 03/02/2023 om 01:04 schreef Samuel B.:
> 
>> I do wish it was easier to search for old things, though. It seems
>> like all the
>> search engines only keep a partial index of the newsgroups.
>>
> Possibly the major crash POV-Ray experienced some time ago destroyed
> part of the index too? However, I agree with you: items are often
> difficult/impossible to find.

No, the searches skipped results even before the crash.  I can't count
the number of times I've had to hunt down an old post manually because
the search engine didn't find it.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> No, the searches skipped results even before the crash.  I can't count
> the number of times I've had to hunt down an old post manually because
> the search engine didn't find it.

There are instructions for "building your own search engine" - and i would
imagine this would be pretty manageable given it could be restricted to just
this site.

No idea who could set up a rudimentary test of this, but at the very least it
would crawl and index the entire site.

I think it would be really great to bea able to scroll through all of the zip,
inc, mcr, and other such files in a "digest" which was just the search
results...

Also, you could search by username, which would be particularly useful when
hunting down a file when you know who the author was.

Post a reply to this message