 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> I don't think you can do that with an IRTC entry. The rules prohibit
> post-processing.
Do they prohibit anti-aliasing or resampling? This is just advanced aa.
Or if that doesn't fly, then it's per pixel weighted average contrast
adjustment :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
+am1 +a0.0 +r9 +j13.5
http://luxlab.com/tmp/aa_noise.png
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3ca8be48@news.povray.org...
> I don't think you can do that with an IRTC entry. The rules prohibit
> post-processing.
I should quote the rules:
http://www.irtc.org/stills/faq.html#q1.1.11
[1.1.11] Exactly what do you mean by "post-processing"?
"One guideline that has been mentioned is that
any process which affects every pixel in the image is usually okay,
but that's not a hard and fast rule--it's just used to encompass gamma
correction, resizing, conversion to JPEG format, and so forth, all of
which are legal."
I see application of the method as a special form of image resizing, which
is certainly allowed.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo <pro### [at] luxlabcom> wrote:
> Do they prohibit anti-aliasing or resampling? This is just advanced aa.
> Or if that doesn't fly, then it's per pixel weighted average contrast
> adjustment :)
It is post-processing in an extent prohibited by the rules. I don't see
any rule allowing resizing the rendered image.
If that would be allowed, what else? Some filtering? Blurring?
Stylisizing? Lens flares?
No, the rules don't allow that kind of post-processing, period.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3ca8e4d2@news.povray.org...
> It is post-processing in an extent prohibited by the rules. I don't see
> any rule allowing resizing the rendered image.
> If that would be allowed, what else? Some filtering? Blurring?
> Stylisizing? Lens flares?
>
> No, the rules don't allow that kind of post-processing, period.
resizing is allowed :
http://www.irtc.org/stills/faq.html#q1.1.14
[1.1.14] Is it legal to resize my image after it is rendered?
Yes, it is. Be careful doing it, though--unless done correctly, resizing can
often add unwanted visual artifacts to an image.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> I see application of the method as a special form of image resizing, which
> is certainly allowed.
I think that's really bending the rules.
The purpose of the contest is to see what a renderer can do. In order to
achieve this purpose, only the image output by the renderer is allowed.
Adjusting brightness/contrast is in the limits of this, although still
allowed.
However, improving the antialiasing of an image by post-processing it
with a paint program clearly breaks this purpose and the rules. The resulting
image is not what the renderer generated, but it has been improved with
a paint program.
There's a simple way of seeing the difference between adjusting
brightness/contrast and smoothing an image by scaling it smaller (ie.
improving its antialiasing): If the image has some pixel-sized artifacts
(which usually appear due to bad antialiasing), brightness/contrast
adjustments will not do anything about it, but they will still be there.
However, scaling the image smaller can get rid of these artifacts. Thus
what it is doing here is to remove artifacts produced by the renderer with
a paint program. The resulting image is not the one produced by the
renderer, but an improved one.
If that's not illegal post-processing, then what is?
How is this different from, for example, applying a blur filter with the
paint program to remove pixelation? Why blurring should be any more illegal?
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> resizing is allowed :
> http://www.irtc.org/stills/faq.html#q1.1.14
> [1.1.14] Is it legal to resize my image after it is rendered?
> Yes, it is. Be careful doing it, though--unless done correctly, resizing can
> often add unwanted visual artifacts to an image.
See my other post.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Norbert Kern <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > I see application of the method as a special form of image resizing, which
> > is certainly allowed.
>
> I think that's really bending the rules.
Resizing is allowed.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo <pro### [at] luxlabcom> wrote:
>> I think that's really bending the rules.
> Resizing is allowed.
My statement still holds.
I don't think that the people who decided about that rule thought that
it could be used to enhance the quality of the image.
It's the spirit of the IRTC rules that the quality of the image produced
by the renderer should not be enhanced by post-processing. The image should
be the one produced by the renderer, with no modified quality. If the
image produced by the renderer had artifacts, it's against the rules to
remove these artifacts with a paint program. Using the resizing trick
is essentially doing this.
We should think about the rules in their whole context and understand
the spirit of the rules, not just their letter.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:56:47 -0500, "Chris Becker" <cmb### [at] ritedu>
wrote:
>I have a very thin object that is not showing up correctly because some
>pixels pick it up and others don't hence creating jaggies, even with
>anti-aliasing. My question is, what do I adjust in anti-aliasing to improve
>this? And does increasing or decreasing the threshold provide for a better
>sample?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>
I had the same problem just a fw days ago: a rendering with very small
text objects. The anti-aliasing was not really working because
parts of the letters were falling between adjacent pixels, so that
the anti-aliasing was not triggered. I ended up rendering the image
at double size, with anti-aliasing ... and sizing it down in a paint
package. That fixed it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
