 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo <pro### [at] luxlab com> wrote:
> Will all IRTC images that have been resized with other than
> nearest neighbour method have to be disqualified now?
IMO the rule allowing resizing should be removed (and the FAQ changed
to the opposite of what it's now).
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> It's just another resampling filter. Look at the table.
> http://www.genaware.com/html/support/faqs/imagis/imagis10.htm
Yes, technically speaking, it's a resizing (resampling).
> Will all IRTC images that have been resized with other than
> nearest neighbour method have to be disqualified now?
!? ...why? Resizing is allowed, at least for the moment.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
http://www.ignorancia.org/
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
>What about writing the same as function in 3.5 ?
My thoughts exactly :) Neither Gaussian blur nor Mosaic should be very
hard to do in 3.5, esp. the latter. With the orthographic camera and
an image_map on a plane in front of the camera, one could almost as
much as make Warp happy :) <ducks>
I haven't really done much in POV recently... maybe I should play
around with image functions and try to recreate the post-processing
filters that were in MegaPOV. If RL permits, that is :(
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives wrote:
>
> (still, I can't get such good results even using the gaussian blur on
> "The Gimp"... he surely cheated even more! ;).
I tried both Gaussian filters in Gimp and can't get good results.
Use Photoshop :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> Jaime Vives wrote:
>
>>(still, I can't get such good results even using the gaussian blur on
>>"The Gimp"... he surely cheated even more! ;).
>>
>
> I tried both Gaussian filters in Gimp and can't get good results.
Yes, results with the Gimp are only a bit better than +a0.0. Anyhow,
I will surely never use such technique, mostly because more detail on my
images usually helps to make my mistakes more visible... :(
> Use Photoshop :)
Well, I don't have a valid plataform... ;) Also, it's perhaps
excessive for my little use of such programs... since I now use internal
height_fields and rarely use image_maps, I mostly use the Gimp to put my
sig and to convert to jpg.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
http://www.ignorancia.org/
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
