 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If DTA doesn't work, you might try IrfanView
http://www.irfanview.com
It's a small program with very nice batch-processing capabilities.
(Disclaimer: I am not in any way involved with IrfanView -- I just find it
handy.)
- Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------
"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the
paperwork is overwhelming."
- Wernher Von Braun, rocketry pioneer
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trf de> wrote in message
news:3bf7c864@news.povray.org...
> In article <3bf7c433$1@news.povray.org> , "Mahalis"
<don### [at] fakeycom>
> wrote:
>
> > I do, but what I'm doing is converting hundreds of images in an
animation; I
> > was looking for a workaround for this.
>
> Lots of programs can convert whole directories to a specific format.
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
>
> Don't hold your breath. Why support and ancient outdated antiquated
> inferior image format?
Because Agent is fun to play with and it's stuck at 2.0 for like 5 years
now... IOWs, antiquated.
I would like to see POV have more diversity in output because sometimes
I -want- to have chunky colors, but I get the idea that they don't want
that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:29:25 -0500, Mahalis wrote:
> Dang. I guess that goes on the *wish list* for POV 4...
JPEG output is more likely than GIF output, and it won't happen either.
As it happens, these are both for the same reason: neither format supports
true, lossless color, and we don't want the support headaches from people
who output to low-quality JPEG or GIF and then come asking why their 37-day
render produced this banded, artifacted, crappy image.
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> I would like to see POV have more diversity in output because sometimes
> I -want- to have chunky colors, but I get the idea that they don't want
> that.
No need to develop ideas on the subject. They will admit it openly.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
> Actually, I'm not intending to make an animated GIF out of the images.
> There's a fairly new bit of software called Microsoft Agent- perhaps you've
> seen it as the Office Assistant in MS Word- and they have also released a
> software that lets you build your own characters. Unfortunately, space
> requirements dictate that the program only accepts 256 color images. I'm
> downloading DTA right now; it may be what I'm looking for.
In general, things like that need all the images to share the same palette of
256. Check to is if that is so for what you need? If so, it's best to render
all the frames, calculate an optimal palette for the whole series, then convert
them to 8-bit.
--
Jon A. Cruz
http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3BF87412.4D329C7B@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> > I would like to see POV have more diversity in output because
sometimes
> > I -want- to have chunky colors, but I get the idea that they don't want
> > that.
>
> No need to develop ideas on the subject. They will admit it openly.
Poor communication on my part, "get" the idea, as in "understand", not
as in "receive".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: No, POV-Ray does not and will not *ever* support output to a palette based
: image format for exactly the same reason as there is no support for any
: other lossy output image format. No putting it on wish-lists and no number
: of user requests will change the POV-Team policy not to support lossy output
: image formats of any kind.
I personally support this principle.
(Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> we don't want the support headaches from people
> who output to low-quality JPEG or GIF and then come asking why their 37-day
> render produced this banded, artifacted, crappy image.
Anyone remember those questions about banded images on 15 or
16 bit displays :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2001 03:50:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> (Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
>lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
>component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
>I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
Kari wouldn't call this --^ "nitpicking" :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On 19 Nov 2001 03:50:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> > (Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
> >lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
> >component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
> >I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
>
> Kari wouldn't call this --^ "nitpicking" :)
Yes, for advanced users 24-bits isn't enough :)
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/room3_24.png
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo <ray### [at] engineercom> wrote:
: Yes, for advanced users 24-bits isn't enough :)
That's exactly why I'm amazed that most image manipulation softwares
(including the top-of-the-line ones, like photoshop) do not have good
support for color depths higher than 24 bits. Most don't have any support,
some of them (eg. photoshop) have some support, but it's very limited (eg.
most filters don't work in that mode).
In the audio world the situation is completely different.
In hifi editing, CD-quality is laughably poor. 48kHz is the absolute
minimum, and the most common standard for high-quality sound editing is
96kHz, 24 bits per sample (either stereo or 5.1 channels, depending on what
you are doing).
A professional hifi person will NEVER use a 44.1kHz device for what he
wants to do. It just isn't enough.
I have the feeling that we can do these approximate relations with respect
to quality:
Audio Image
----- -----
44kHz, 16bps <-> 8 bits per color channel (3-4 channels)
96kHz, 24bps <-> 16 bits per color channel (3-4 channels)
I'm just amazed that professionals don't demand the higher quality.
Just editing b/w images with 8 bits per channel is awful (you have only
256 shades of gray, which is completely insufficient for professional work).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bf8f49c@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> I'm just amazed that professionals don't demand the higher quality.
>
They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
: They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
: Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
Oh, I thought that photoshop was kind of #1 in image editing. I was wrong
(and for some reason happy about it...).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bf8f77f@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> Oh, I thought that photoshop was kind of #1 in image editing.
Kind of like MsWord versus (La)TeX.
The saddest is that many "who should be professionals" don't know the
difference, measured by the technical quality of the artwork I get on
my desk from top design bureaus :(
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
3bf8f77f@news.povray.org...
> ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
> : They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
> : Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
It really depends on what is considered a "professional". Every professional
printshop/studio I've worked with uses photoshop as its main tool. I don't
know about Photoshop's shortcomings, but it looks that these people are
pretty happy with it. After all, 100% of their work involves making
brochures and business cards where apparently the sort of quality obtained
with more sophisticated software would just be a waste of money. For these
people, who represent probably the largest market share for Photoshop, I
guess that 24-bit editing is more than enough as it's unlikely that the
readers of a mail-order lingerie/powertools/stationery/whatever catalogues
will complain about the colours being a little flat.
Off-topic rant : it seems that lots of people consider that a "professional"
tool is some sort of supertool and that using it makes you a (condescending)
superhuman. I'd say that's marketing-enhanced snobbery in 90% of the cases
(the remaining 10% beging those few with an actual profesional need for the
extra bells and whistles). A professional tool is just the right one for the
job, period. If someone makes a good business using a particular tool, then
this tool is professional, but nobody needs a sledgehammer to swat flies...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bf8f49c@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> That's exactly why I'm amazed that most image manipulation softwares
> (including the top-of-the-line ones, like photoshop) do not have good
> support for color depths higher than 24 bits. Most don't have any support,
> some of them (eg. photoshop) have some support, but it's very limited (eg.
> most filters don't work in that mode).
Probably because printers won't deliver any better quality than that
resulting of four (or a few more) colors. And given that PhotoShop and Co
have been design with the "real" world in mind, they don't bother with
different quality. Keep in mind that when printing you usually get a better
quality if you have a high-resolution image with 'less' colors than a
low-resolution image with 'more' colors. Or try it this way: take any b&w
laser printer. No matter what you do and even with the best setup a
grayscale image will not look better if you provide more than a 300dpi and
and more than about a 50 shades of gray. Thus, why bother with the
additional information if it will be lost after output (the primary
application of these programs) in the first place?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
: Off-topic rant : it seems that lots of people consider that a "professional"
: tool is some sort of supertool
I didn't say "professional tool". I just said that I wonder why professionals
don't demand more quality, as happens in the audio side.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: Probably because printers won't deliver any better quality than that
: resulting of four (or a few more) colors. And given that PhotoShop and Co
: have been design with the "real" world in mind, they don't bother with
: different quality.
In the same way one could argue that why use 96kHz 24-bit sound when the
final media will be a CD?
The answer is that while you work with the sound/image, you lose less
details because you have much more resolution to work with. In audio this
means that making everything at 96/24 (recording, mixing, adding effects, etc)
makes the final CD better than if you had used 44/16 from the very beginning.
In image editing it's the same: When you apply all kinds of filters and
transforms, you lose less details if you have a higher resolution and color
depth. This makes the final product better, even if it has a lower resolution
and/or color depth.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bf9101f@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> In image editing it's the same: When you apply all kinds of filters and
> transforms, you lose less details if you have a higher resolution and color
> depth. This makes the final product better, even if it has a lower resolution
> and/or color depth.
No, even in a 8 bpcc image there is far more detail than you need. Even
with just 4 bpcc you still get good output images - try it in grayscale,
that is less expensive than color. And with color you actually need less
information if you only have the same density in case of those printing
methods where you cannot really mix colors.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the same way one could argue that why use 96kHz 24-bit sound when
the
> final media will be a CD?
> The answer is that while you work with the sound/image, you lose
less
> details because you have much more resolution to work with. In audio
this
> means that making everything at 96/24 (recording, mixing, adding
effects, etc)
> makes the final CD better than if you had used 44/16 from the very
beginning.
> In image editing it's the same: When you apply all kinds of filters
and
> transforms, you lose less details if you have a higher resolution and
color
> depth. This makes the final product better, even if it has a lower
resolution
> and/or color depth.
I guess a further analogy would be creating a JPEG image for the web.
Sure, you could save your work as a JPEG, open it later, do some more
work, and save it again, but you lose quality each time. Obviously it
is better to work with a lossless format during the creation, and only
create the JPEG at the end.
And anyway, there's nothing wrong with being a perfectionist :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Riggle wrote:
>
> It's a small program with very nice batch-processing capabilities.
> (Disclaimer: I am not in any way involved with IrfanView -- I just find it
> handy.)
Additionnal off-topic ad: Irfanview is *my* image viewer
under Windows. Small, fast, intelligent memory usage.
And free.
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew" <ast### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bf945e7@news.povray.org...
> I guess a further analogy would be creating a JPEG image for the web.
> Sure, you could save your work as a JPEG, open it later, do some more
> work, and save it again, but you lose quality each time. Obviously it
> is better to work with a lossless format during the creation, and only
> create the JPEG at the end.
>
Heh - when I first started playing with graphics, I always used JPG, not
realising the cost. I thought my eyesight was just deteriorating really
quickly...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2001 07:01:32 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> That's exactly why I'm amazed that most image manipulation softwares
>(including the top-of-the-line ones, like photoshop) do not have good
>support for color depths higher than 24 bits. Most don't have any support,
>some of them (eg. photoshop) have some support, but it's very limited (eg.
>most filters don't work in that mode).
Can you name a typical desktop machine (Windows, Mac, Linux) which can
work with 16 bits per channel? I know of none. However, graphics
workstations like SGI can, and do, use 48bpp color (or 64, with
alpha). So it all comes down to the definition of "professional" :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> Can you name a typical desktop machine (Windows, Mac, Linux) which can
> work with 16 bits per channel?
I have processed succesfully 16bpc images in Win98SE Photostop.
You are mixing presentation with processing. 8bpc is enough
for visual presentation of images with contrast ratios of less
than 200.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:1gjkvt0pd69gobkgmpphifcbpjc6uqtodo@4ax.com...
> So it all comes down to the definition of "professional" :)
And now there's going to be a lot of quibbling over that, too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
>
> Is there a POV option to output to GIF format? Better, is there a way to
> make POV-Ray output to a 256 color bitmap?
8-bit color? Ugh, why would you want to? Use Photoshop or something for that...
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Ugh, why would you want to?
I don't exactly *want* to, I *have* to. Besides. I don't have Photoshop, and
even if I did I doubt it can mass-process all the images in a folder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:00:59 -0500, Mahalis wrote:
>>Ugh, why would you want to?
> I don't exactly *want* to, I *have* to. Besides. I don't have Photoshop, and
> even if I did I doubt it can mass-process all the images in a folder.
netpbm.
Of course, that's my answer to everything...
--
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbt 1}hollow interior{media{emission T}}finish{
reflection.1}}#end Z(-x-x.2y)Z(-x-x.4x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
> >Ugh, why would you want to?
> I don't exactly *want* to, I *have* to. Besides. I don't have Photoshop, and
> even if I did I doubt it can mass-process all the images in a folder.
ImageMagick
http://www.imagemagick.org/
--
Jon A. Cruz
http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: netpbm.
: Of course, that's my answer to everything...
In fact, any image conversor suffices, even if it can convert just one image
at a time, as long as it can be used from the command line and you are using
a regular unix shell.
One of the main problems in a windowed-only interfaces (read: Windows) is
that if a program doesn't support something (eg. doing something to a series
of files instead of just one file), then there's nothing you can do about it,
you just have to live with it.
The great thing about an OS that supports a proper command line/scripting
language is that the programs don't have to support things like that as you
can automatize its functionality for several targets at a time.
(And now 90% of people reading this will think that I hate windowed
interfaces. *sigh*)
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:slr### [at] fwicom Ron Parker wrote:
> netpbm.
Well I tried to use it (and imagemagick) in an ini file and failed.
;conv.ini
;for using the post_frame option to convert images on the fly.
[ngif256] ;netpbm
Post_Frame_Command=pnmfile %o
Post_Frame_Command=ppmquant -fs 256 %o | ppmtogif > gif.gif
[igif256] ;imagemagick
Post_Frame_Command=identify -verbose %o
Post_Frame_Command=convert -color 256 -dither %o gif.gif
In both situations the first post frame works, the second fails. The
second works when executed 'by hand' from a commandlinebox.
Also I couldn't figure out how to give the outputfile the 'right' name.
PietjePuk03.ppm >> PietjePuk03.gif
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
: Also I couldn't figure out how to give the outputfile the 'right' name.
: PietjePuk03.ppm >> PietjePuk03.gif
You don't specify which platform you are using, but in a regular unix shell
you could make the conversion to all the files like this:
for F in *.ppm; do ppmquant -fs 256 $F | ppmtogif > `basename $F .ppm`.gif; done
If you are using zsh, the above command works just fine, but you can also
use a shortcut version:
for F (*.ppm) ppmquant -fs 256 $F | ppmtogif > `basename $F .ppm`.gif
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bfb70dd@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> You don't specify which platform you are using
WinNT4, but you knew that ;)
I'll try this with bash.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2001 01:54:04 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>: netpbm.
>
>: Of course, that's my answer to everything...
>
> In fact, any image conversor suffices, even if it can convert just one image
> at a time, as long as it can be used from the command line and you are using
> a regular unix shell.
> One of the main problems in a windowed-only interfaces (read: Windows) is
> that if a program doesn't support something (eg. doing something to a series
> of files instead of just one file), then there's nothing you can do about it,
> you just have to live with it.
Fortunately, cmd.exe (and I think also command.com) support a FOR command
that's almost identical to the one in bash.
--
plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
*z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
"RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: Fortunately, cmd.exe (and I think also command.com) support a FOR command
: that's almost identical to the one in bash.
But at least with command.com there's no way to change the name of the
file (for the output), so in that case the converter program has to change
the name automatically (which fortunately most converters do).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:slr### [at] fwicom Ron Parker wrote:
> Fortunately, cmd.exe (and I think also command.com) support a FOR
> command that's almost identical to the one in bash.
>
Have not tried this FOR thing yet, but mentioning 'cmd.exe' triggered a
solution for my problem.
Post_Frame_Command=ppmquant -fs 256 %o | ppmtogif > gif.gif
does not work, nothing seems to happen.
Post_Frame_Command=cmd /c ppmquant -fs 256 %o | ppmtogif > gif.gif
works fine.
Post_Frame_Command=command /c ppmquant -fs 256 %o | ppmtogif > gif.gif
does not work. POV says: could not create process.
Is there something I can do to POV-Ray or my system (WinNT 4) that
autmatically cmd.exe is used?
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2001 08:49:55 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>: Fortunately, cmd.exe (and I think also command.com) support a FOR command
>: that's almost identical to the one in bash.
>
> But at least with command.com there's no way to change the name of the
> file (for the output), so in that case the converter program has to change
> the name automatically (which fortunately most converters do).
But it can append to the existing name. So, for example:
D:\myfiles\POV>for %i in (*.bmp) do copy %i %i.bak
D:\myfiles\POV>copy dispersion.bmp dispersion.bmp.bak
1 file(s) copied.
D:\myfiles\POV>copy disp.bmp disp.bmp.bak
1 file(s) copied.
D:\myfiles\POV>copy sig000.bmp sig000.bmp.bak
1 file(s) copied.
--
plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
*z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
"RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:28:55 +0200, Kari Kivisalo
<ray### [at] engineercom> wrote:
>I have processed succesfully 16bpc images in Win98SE Photostop.
Me too.
>You are mixing presentation with processing.
I am not. What I meant was that truly professional graphics work is
done on graphics workstation where 48 bit color is native.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote :
>
> I am not. What I meant was that truly professional graphics work is
> done on graphics workstation where 48 bit color is native.
And I have to agree that your definition of "professional" is unusual.
Almost all professional computer art is -not- done on such workstations.
Some of the best and biggest jobs are, but not any large percentage of the
total of professional artwork.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:28:03 -0500, "Bill DeWitt"
<bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> And I have to agree that your definition of "professional" is unusual.
>Almost all professional computer art is -not- done on such workstations.
>Some of the best and biggest jobs are, but not any large percentage of the
>total of professional artwork.
I know a girl who can draw a better sunset in MS Paintbrush (16
colors) than I would ever do in POV. But this is art, and I was
talking about work (although I have to agree that in CG the line is
quite blurred)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3bf8c7f1@news.povray.org...
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> : No, POV-Ray does not and will not *ever* support output to a palette
based
> : image format for exactly the same reason as there is no support for any
> : other lossy output image format. No putting it on wish-lists and no
number
> : of user requests will change the POV-Team policy not to support lossy
output
> : image formats of any kind.
>
> I personally support this principle.
>
> (Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
> lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
> component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
> I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
Aren't you able, in PNG, to specify the number of bits per color? Although
it only lets you go down to 5 bits per color, it's still pretty lossy :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: Aren't you able, in PNG, to specify the number of bits per color? Although
: it only lets you go down to 5 bits per color, it's still pretty lossy :)
Is this possible in POV-Ray?
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, it is, though that is *not* what I was looking for.
Warp wrote...
> Is this possible in POV-Ray?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Question about that: Is there a way to specify that it *only* use colors
from the Web palette when converting?
Jon A. Cruz wrote...
> ImageMagick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And how would I do that? Agent is *really* picky about colors- I think it'll
only work with the Web palette.
"Jon A. Cruz" <jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote in message
news:3BF### [at] geocitiescom...
> Mahalis wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'm not intending to make an animated GIF out of the images.
> > There's a fairly new bit of software called Microsoft Agent- perhaps
you've
> > seen it as the Office Assistant in MS Word- and they have also released
a
> > software that lets you build your own characters. Unfortunately, space
> > requirements dictate that the program only accepts 256 color images. I'm
> > downloading DTA right now; it may be what I'm looking for.
>
> In general, things like that need all the images to share the same palette
of
> 256. Check to is if that is so for what you need? If so, it's best to
render
> all the frames, calculate an optimal palette for the whole series, then
convert
> them to 8-bit.
>
>
> --
> Jon A. Cruz
> http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
> And how would I do that? Agent is *really* picky about colors- I think it'll
> only work with the Web palette.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/msagent/deschar_3r8y.asp?frame=true
Looks like it doesn't. Instead it just wants the first and last 10 colors (20
total) to be the standard Windows/VGA base palette. As long as you don't target
8-bit display users, you are free to use whatever you want for the other 236.
But... if you are targeting 8-bit users, they do have a recommended palette to
go to (the office palette)
http://www.microsoft.com/msagent/downloads/assistpalet.bmp
Anyway, that's basically what we used to need to deal with in Windows
multimedia, and making a set of images to a single 8-bit palette containing
those 20 colors in the top and bottom 10 was a common thing.
--
Jon A. Cruz
http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html
A world without string is Chaos. - R. Smuntz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tanks!
I know you'll think me a complete idiot (and maybe I am), but is there any
way to get ImageMagick to do this automatically?
> Looks like it doesn't. Instead it just wants the first and last 10 colors
(20
> total) to be the standard Windows/VGA base palette. As long as you don't
target
> 8-bit display users, you are free to use whatever you want for the other
236.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
>
> Tanks!
> I know you'll think me a complete idiot (and maybe I am), but is there any
> way to get ImageMagick to do this automatically?
>
> > Looks like it doesn't. Instead it just wants the first and last 10 colors
> (20
> > total) to be the standard Windows/VGA base palette. As long as you don't
> target
> > 8-bit display users, you are free to use whatever you want for the other
> 236.
As far as I know, ImageMagick is a command line utility. (?)
If that is the case, you can write a "script" for it. A shell
script if you work with Unix, or a batch script if you work
with Windows (the .bat files or .cmd files you sometimes see).
This is not very complicated, but if you've never done that
before, you'll probably need some help or a book.
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I do know how to get ImageMagick to mass-process images, I just don't
know what setting to use to get it to make the first and last 10 items in
the palette the standard Win colors.
> > > Looks like it doesn't. Instead it just wants the first and last 10
colors
> > (20
> > > total) to be the standard Windows/VGA base palette. As long as you
don't
> > target
> > > 8-bit display users, you are free to use whatever you want for the
other
> > 236.
> As far as I know, ImageMagick is a command line utility. (?)
>
> If that is the case, you can write a "script" for it. A shell
> script if you work with Unix, or a batch script if you work
> with Windows (the .bat files or .cmd files you sometimes see).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
>
> Well, I do know how to get ImageMagick to mass-process images, I just don't
> know what setting to use to get it to make the first and last 10 items in
> the palette the standard Win colors.
I don't know ImageMagick. Perhaps there's a newsgroup or
mailing-list dedicated to the usage of this tool?
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
