 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2011 12:22 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.12.2011 11:02, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> I still don't see how you can "fix" the seems. It's not like you can
>> move individual blades of grass around.
>
> For /really/ good seamless textures, that's exactly what you do.
Except that, uh, it can't be done? :-P
> You haven't spent much time with Photoshop or Gimp, have you?
Photoshop is /far/ too expensive for me to ever afford. (Especially
given that I'd probably hardly ever use it anyway.)
I've used the Gimp. Everybody claims it's this insanely powerful
product. Personally, I can't get it to do anything vaguely useful... If
there /are/ powerful features in there, they are very well hidden.
>> POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
>> textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
>> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
>> texture or...
>
> Make that "last time I checked, no-one had yet found a way of...",
> because unless you've checked every possible combination of parameters,
> layered textures, averaged textures, and what-have-you, there are still
> ways undiscovered that might lead to the desired result.
Most interesting textures do not have closed-form representations.
POV-Ray only renders closed-form equations. QED.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-12-01 09:24, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> It's not like you trained week after week after week to enter a dance
>>>> competition, right? I mean, who would do that for fun? ;)
>>>
>>> I spent a whole year learning diabolo. Hint: doing that doesn't cost any
>>> money. I would think there can't be too many people who can just afford
>>> to blow $8,000 on buying some images just to enter a competition.
>>
>> Someone who sees it as an investment to pad his or her portfolio and
>> resume, in order to get more web design clients?
>
> $8,000 is more money than I have ever owned at any time in my entire
> life. (I just changed the exchange rate. On 8 Nov 2007, that would have
> been £3795.07 - and that's the lowest it's been in the last 10 years.)
>
> Would you seriously take out a 5-year loan just to afford some pictures
> to put together a website that *might* get you a few more orders?
>
If that's what it took to get my business off the ground and earn a
living, probably.
>>>> Alternately, you can browser image hosting sites and look for images
>>>> which have licencing terms that meet your needs.
>>>
>>> What makes you think there will be anything with acceptable licensing
>>> terms?
>>
>> Because I've used some. There's lots of stuff on Flickr with Creative
>> Commons licences, you just have to look for it.
>
> In my limited experience, the stuff on Flickr is no better than the
> rubbish I could shoot myself.
>
Ah. So based on a limited experience, you have dismissed an entire pool
of possible pictures. Gotcha.
>>>> Or browse through your
>>>> "My Pictures" folder. Most people will have something interesting in
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> It's empty?
>>
>> You don't own a digital camera?
>
> No, I just don't put the pictures in the My Little Pony folder. But
> regardless, no photo I have ever taken is even remotely good enough to
> be used in an art project.
>
Says who? Some people have gotten very famous painting soup cans...
>>> Well /obviously/ people can make money out of it, given that very few
>>> people are good at it. That's not really relevant to my point - a
>>> typical person wanting to put a website [or other publication] together
>>> can't access beautiful calligraphy. :-P
>>
>> Sure they can. If they are unable to write it themselves, there's bound
>> to be someone in their immediate surroundings who is.
>
> Given that calligraphy is a rare skill, the idea that there's "bound to
> be" someone "in their immediate surroundings" seems rather questionable...
Cousins? Neighors? Coworkers? Friends? People in your dance classes?
Do you know for a fact that all of these people can only produce chicken
scratches, or have you already decided that only Tibetan monks with a
life to spare can achieve decent results, based on your limited experience?
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
>> textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
>> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
>> texture or...
>
> By playing with gradient and checker textures, I'm sure you could come
> up with a decent canvas texture in less than half an hour.
Off you go then. :-)
>> Somebody somewhere must actually /teach/ graphic design skills...
>
> If you are talking about the technical ability to perform a task? yes.
> Many schools, do teach those.
>
> However, if you are talking about the artistic ability to come up with a
> concept, then this is a little more difficult to teach.
I expect that most things of this type are part-science and part-art.
Most people would probably think that computer programming is purely a
technical skill, but surely there is an art to being a good programmer
as well. But yes, art is definitely harder to teach!
> But in order to
> be able to do it, you must first rid your mind of all those negative
> preconceptions. Let the creative energy flow through you. If it ends up
> looking like crap, then throw it away, but don't hold yourself from
> trying because "It's going to look like crap!".
Trouble is, I just end up doing the whole "staring at a blank page"
thing. I don't create anything. There's no algorithm for inventing new
things, which is probably why I suck at it...
> Geez, I really sound like Yoda!
Now *that* is a saleable skill! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> $8,000 is more money than I have ever owned at any time in my entire
>> life. (I just changed the exchange rate. On 8 Nov 2007, that would have
>> been £3795.07 - and that's the lowest it's been in the last 10 years.)
>>
>> Would you seriously take out a 5-year loan just to afford some pictures
>> to put together a website that *might* get you a few more orders?
>
> If that's what it took to get my business off the ground and earn a
> living, probably.
Damn. I'd probably spend that money on something /guaranteed/ to get
results. But then again, I wouldn't be running my own business in the
first place...
>>> Because I've used some. There's lots of stuff on Flickr with Creative
>>> Commons licences, you just have to look for it.
>>
>> In my limited experience, the stuff on Flickr is no better than the
>> rubbish I could shoot myself.
>
> Ah. So based on a limited experience, you have dismissed an entire pool
> of possible pictures. Gotcha.
The majority of Flickr users are amateurs like me. Is it surprising that
they produce pictures of similar quality?
I'm sure if you search hard enough, someone somewhere has done
professional-quality work. But you won't find much of it in there.
>>> You don't own a digital camera?
>>
>> No, I just don't put the pictures in the My Little Pony folder. But
>> regardless, no photo I have ever taken is even remotely good enough to
>> be used in an art project.
>
> Says who? Some people have gotten very famous painting soup cans...
The site gallery I linked to shows pictures of dramatic landscapes,
exotic animals, beautiful sculptures, and so forth. I don't have any
photos of anything remotely like that.
>> Given that calligraphy is a rare skill, the idea that there's "bound to
>> be" someone "in their immediate surroundings" seems rather
>> questionable...
>
> Cousins? Neighors? Coworkers? Friends? People in your dance classes?
>
> Do you know for a fact that all of these people can only produce chicken
> scratches, or have you already decided that only Tibetan monks with a
> life to spare can achieve decent results, based on your limited experience?
In 30 years of being alive, I've never seen anybody do calligraphy and
get good results. So it can't be that common. :-P
As a matter of fact, several people in the office where I work make
greetings cards as a hobby. They're much better than anything I could
make, but I still wouldn't say they're especially good.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2011 2:43 PM, Invisible wrote:
> In 30 years of being alive, I've never seen anybody do calligraphy and
> get good results. So it can't be that common. :-P
>
Calligraphy is not that common but I watched a friend teach himself how
to do it. You need to practice a lot and have proper pens.
Most people could learn. In fact before the advent of ballpoint pens a
lot of people could write copperplate. It is not that hard.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 01/12/2011 13:22, clipka a écrit :
>> Last time I checked, there's no
>> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
>> texture or...
>
Have you look at the tablecloth of the demo picture (the own with some
biscuits and some coffee cup) ? That's quite a canvas texture for me.
> Make that "last time I checked, no-one had yet found a way of...",
Right. so many possibilities!
If you were to look in the doc, there is no brushed metal pattern... and
yet some images have it... There is more in texture that just pigment:
normal and finish might play a lot too. And you can layer the
pigments... and then you have the warp which might also make interesting
variations (in addition to the pattern specific setting: wood is boring
and regular until you start playing with pattern modifiers (turbulence
and such).
It is not just about posing lights.
If the wet paper texture is applied on a flat surface, the look might be
fine for some angles of view, and not so good (for realism) on some
other (such as the borders are too straight).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> I've used the Gimp. Everybody claims it's this insanely powerful
> product. Personally, I can't get it to do anything vaguely useful... If
> there /are/ powerful features in there, they are very well hidden.
1. open gimp
2. search on google images for "pebbles"
3. choose some interesting result, such as this
http://www.stonetohome.com/media/gbu0/prodlg/Pentland%20Pebbles.jpg
4. copy the image
5. ctrl+v in Gimp
6. Filters -> Map -> Make Seamless
http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-make-seamless.html
7. Filters -> Map -> Tile, choosing Unit % and a value such as 200 or
400 http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-tile.html
is this more challenging than writing a Haskell monad?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2011 03:01 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 2:43 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> In 30 years of being alive, I've never seen anybody do calligraphy and
>> get good results. So it can't be that common. :-P
>>
>
> Calligraphy is not that common but I watched a friend teach himself how
> to do it. You need to practice a lot and have proper pens.
>
> Most people could learn. In fact before the advent of ballpoint pens a
> lot of people could write copperplate. It is not that hard.
My sister got given a calligraphy set one time... She never got far with
it. (Then again, that might just be lack of application.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2011 03:23 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>> I've used the Gimp. Everybody claims it's this insanely powerful
>> product. Personally, I can't get it to do anything vaguely useful...
>> If there /are/ powerful features in there, they are very well hidden.
>
> 1. open gimp
> 2. search on google images for "pebbles"
> 3. choose some interesting result, such as this
> http://www.stonetohome.com/media/gbu0/prodlg/Pentland%20Pebbles.jpg
> 4. copy the image
> 5. ctrl+v in Gimp
> 6. Filters -> Map -> Make Seamless
> http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-make-seamless.html
> 7. Filters -> Map -> Tile, choosing Unit % and a value such as 200 or
> 400 http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-tile.html
Interesting. As I expected, it doesn't actually produce a very
convincing effect; it merely wraps the image, and then does some
cross-fading. The result is a very visible transition. (Still, at least
they made it circular, eh?)
I still don't see how it's possible to take an arbitrary image and make
it properly seamless.
As an aside, I'd never noticed the Filter menu before. There's quite a
lot of stuff in there...
> is this more challenging than writing a Haskell monad?
What's so hard about that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 01/12/2011 03:23 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> Invisible escreveu:
>>> I've used the Gimp. Everybody claims it's this insanely powerful
>>> product. Personally, I can't get it to do anything vaguely useful...
>>> If there /are/ powerful features in there, they are very well hidden.
>>
>> 1. open gimp
>> 2. search on google images for "pebbles"
>> 3. choose some interesting result, such as this
>> http://www.stonetohome.com/media/gbu0/prodlg/Pentland%20Pebbles.jpg
>> 4. copy the image
>> 5. ctrl+v in Gimp
>> 6. Filters -> Map -> Make Seamless
>> http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-make-seamless.html
>> 7. Filters -> Map -> Tile, choosing Unit % and a value such as 200 or
>> 400 http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-tile.html
>
> Interesting. As I expected, it doesn't actually produce a very
> convincing effect; it merely wraps the image, and then does some
> cross-fading. The result is a very visible transition. (Still, at least
> they made it circular, eh?)
it's a smooth transition that is barely noticeable in the large scheme
of things. Once it's mapped on a 3D floor, you simply don't notice the
faded edges on the tiled floor.
> As an aside, I'd never noticed the Filter menu before. There's quite a
> lot of stuff in there...
o_0
It's just the bread and butter of bitmap editors...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
