 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaay net> wrote in message
news:web.3e6e4c47c070d06c7ba9929f0@news.povray.org...
>
> I searched Zazzle for an image under your name and came up blank. Can you
> provide a link or name?
>
I'm pterandon at:
http://www.zazzle.com/contributors/products/gallery/browse_results.asp?cid=2
38024427131949824
The images were IIRC done with Tierazon or its siblings.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> About the resolution, I know that it's low, but from what I've seen it's OK
> as posters are meant to be watched from a certain distance. Note that the
> Wet bird was enlarged x 1.5 so it's more fuzzy that it should be, not that
> it's abnormal for a image featuring rain. I'd like to render it bigger than
> 2400*3200 but it was done with Megapov and the fast focal blur feature
> freaks out on large image sizes. The image maps are too low-def anyway, so
> to create a very high definition version of this image I will have to do
> some additional 2d work and find a way to recreate the focal blur that looks
> good and doesn't take ages (even in post-process and lots of RAM it's not
> easy to do with 90Mb files).
For future post processing features in Megapov it will be taken care that
it can handle large image sizes if there is enough memory. The problem
about focal blur is that it is not 'local' - you can't post process it
line by line and thereby saving a lot of memory.
HCR-Edit does handle such image sizes but you will probably run into
memory problems as well. It allocates 3x32bit per pixel for the image and
the same size again for all modifications. Plus 32 bit per pixel for the
depth map when doing post processing. Apart from that focal blur will
take some time at that size...
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:38:15 +0100, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> For future post processing features in Megapov it will be taken care that
> it can handle large image sizes if there is enough memory. The problem
> about focal blur is that it is not 'local' - you can't post process it
> line by line and thereby saving a lot of memory.
In order to avoid often swapping, size of memory cache is adjustable. It is
percentage of image size. If you know that some effect use values within
some distance from current pixel you can adjust cache to best size
(differently for each source: red, blue, green, normals, ipoints, depth, uv)
and engine tries follow calculations with content of this cache.
followups to p.u.p
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3E70B3F7.A6E4F8E8@gmx.de...
> HCR-Edit does handle such image sizes but you will probably run into
> memory problems as well. It allocates 3x32bit per pixel for the image and
> the same size again for all modifications. Plus 32 bit per pixel for the
> depth map when doing post processing. Apart from that focal blur will
> take some time at that size...
My only experience with post-processed focal blur on large images (min
3200*2400) so far has been with Gimp (Picture Publisher crashes). It worked
but each step of the whole process took a very, very, very long time (I let
it run at night...), and I couldn't find a way to control the "bleeding".
I've seen that HCR-Edit can control bleeding so I'll have a try some day.
"True" or "fake", focal blur in large pics with relatively complex content
is still an issue.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> The zazzle site http://www.zazzle.com is now out of beta
> phase after several years of beta activities.
Nice.
> - contributors can now delete items from their gallery
Annoyingly, I can't when they are created more than 24 hours ago.
Something I've just experienced - when trying to add a zazzle product on
the povray.org site, I get the error:
"You did not enter a valid product ID. Valid product ID's are numbers
that begin with either a '1' or a '7', and must be exactly 8 digits in
length."
Huh? The IDs for my products are 18 digits in length and don't start
with 1 or 7...
For those interested:
http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/product.asp?product%5Fid=22869307
7856473500
http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/product.asp?product%5Fid=22890666
8216953872
0 products sold so far... ;)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision: http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have never had prints made but I've got a couple of images I'm
thinking of having done, I'm curious to hear some opinions on what
would be an acceptable resolution. If Zazzle's 100 pixels per inch is
considered low, what should I aim to render at? 200ppi? 300ppi? How
much does the print media affect resolution (i.e. glossy photo paper
needs x pixels per inch, while matte photo paper needs y)?
---
Bob Chmilnitzky (a.k.a. Jet Jaguar)
I have a spam blocking address. Replying to me is like pulling teeth.
Visit my crappy home page at http://home.att.net/~chmilnir/
MSTie #54297
Crossposting makes Baby Jesus cry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jet Jaguar wrote:
>I have never had prints made but I've got a couple of images I'm
>thinking of having done, I'm curious to hear some opinions on what
>would be an acceptable resolution. If Zazzle's 100 pixels per inch is
>considered low, what should I aim to render at? 200ppi? 300ppi? How
>much does the print media affect resolution (i.e. glossy photo paper
>needs x pixels per inch, while matte photo paper needs y)?
The image, printer, and software all make a big difference, but generally
300 is great if you can afford it. People with good near vision looking
closely would appreciate the difference. 200 is a good practical number for
most people, generally looking very good. 100 is borderline; looking
closely will definitely show pixels (or it will appear blurry). 100 is fine
for images that won't be looked at closely, or where sharpness is not
required. It looks surprisingly good with some images.
Generally, glossy media will show more resolution, but some printers are
excellent on matte and art papers. If I had to guess I'd say glossy
typically gains around 50ppi resolution in display ability; glossy also has
slightly better blacks and saturation. Even so, I prefer the look of a
matte print.
For my printer, for an image I want to look it's best, I use 240 (partly
because it's an even multiple of the printer's actual resolution).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Renderdog wrote:
>I'll report back on the Zazzle's print quality when I get it.
The print (a large matte canvas of the wet bird) arrived and it looks great.
The colors look perfect and the blacks are good (I assume the gloss canvas
would have better blacks, but this one is fine). The matte canvas is VERY
matte, which I like. It has a diagonal weave which is unusual but looks
fine.
The 100dpi image is very good. It's not razor sharp, but no one will ever
look at this print and notice any lack of clarity.
I wouldn't hesitate to order from Zazzle again. They provided a great
product at a good price with a quick turnaround and minimum hassle. Be sure
to order through the www.povray.org website if you can.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
