 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
--
//Mahalis
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare T=texture{pigment{crackle
scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0 rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1
rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}} finish{ambient 1}} #declare
c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1 rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}
merge{object{c translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
--
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?
No.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
don't you have any other program for image processing?
every second program, that can load images, can save them
as well in any other format ... decreasing the number of
colors is no problem, too....
And the most "old" programs can do GIF too ... (the number
of new progs, that write GIF is decreasing, as there was
some legal stuff( that's it why POV doesn't support GIF any
longer))
--
Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzer net>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I do, but what I'm doing is converting hundreds of images in an animation; I
was looking for a workaround for this.
--
//Mahalis
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare T=texture{pigment{crackle
scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0 rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1
rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}} finish{ambient 1}} #declare
c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1 rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}
merge{object{c translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
--
"Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote in message
news:3bf7c11c@news.povray.org...
> don't you have any other program for image processing?
>
> every second program, that can load images, can save them
> as well in any other format ... decreasing the number of
> colors is no problem, too....
>
> And the most "old" programs can do GIF too ... (the number
> of new progs, that write GIF is decreasing, as there was
> some legal stuff( that's it why POV doesn't support GIF any
> longer))
>
> --
> Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Perhaps what you need is DTA? It can be found here:
ftp.povray.org/pub/povray/utilities/dta/
I do wonder if you'd be better off using an MPEG encoder to make
animations, though. With MPEG there is no need to reduce colour depth
in the input images, and almost everyone can play them.
Mahalis <don### [at] fakeycom> wrote in message
news:3bf7c433$1@news.povray.org...
> I do, but what I'm doing is converting hundreds of images in an
animation; I
> was looking for a workaround for this.
>
> --
>
> //Mahalis
> camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare
T=texture{pigment{crackle
> scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0 rgb 1][0.05 rgb
1][0.1
> rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}} finish{ambient 1}} #declare
> c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1
rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}
> merge{object{c translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
> cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
> cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
> --
>
>
> "Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote in message
> news:3bf7c11c@news.povray.org...
> > don't you have any other program for image processing?
> >
> > every second program, that can load images, can save them
> > as well in any other format ... decreasing the number of
> > colors is no problem, too....
> >
> > And the most "old" programs can do GIF too ... (the number
> > of new progs, that write GIF is decreasing, as there was
> > some legal stuff( that's it why POV doesn't support GIF any
> > longer))
> >
> > --
> > Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet>
> >
> >
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
//Mahalis
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare T=texture{pigment{crackle
scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0 rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1
rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}} finish{ambient 1}} #declare
c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1 rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}
merge{object{c translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mahalis" <don### [at] fakeycom> wrote in message
news:3bf7dc09$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Agent used to take bmp IIRC...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Agent used to take bmp IIRC...
Well, the character editor (at least the version I have) takes both
256-color BMPs and regular GIFs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> a écrit dans le message de news:
> as there was
> some legal stuff( that's it why POV doesn't support GIF any
> longer))
The latest Megapov didn't but 3.5 does support GIF. As I understand it, the
GIF legal tangle will be over soon since the patent expires in 2003
(specialists correct me if I'm wrong).
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> The latest Megapov didn't but 3.5 does support GIF.
GIF input - yes
Gif output - no
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:08:54 -0500, "Bill DeWitt"
<bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> Agent used to take bmp IIRC...
I guess Microsoft can afford the Unisys patent :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dang. I guess that goes on the *wish list* for POV 4...
> GIF input - yes
> Gif output - no
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mahalis wrote:
>
> Dang. I guess that goes on the *wish list* for POV 4...
>
> > GIF input - yes
> > Gif output - no
Don't hold your breath. Why support and ancient outdated antiquated
inferior image format?
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bf819c4$1@news.povray.org> , "Mahalis" <don### [at] fakeycom>
wrote:
> Dang. I guess that goes on the *wish list* for POV 4...
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.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] trfde> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
