 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
#1 When I render a post processed animation, the frames of the
animation do not get post processed. Instead, every frame is written to
a file called *PP.* so I get only the last frame. This is obviously
wrong. How do I turn this feature off?
#2 There is mention in the HTML docs (at the end of the convolution
matrix) of a blur matrix. Yet I can find no other references, anywhere
in the docs. May I have a example, and usage for this feature, if it
exists?
And thanks, Nathan, good job on .5.
--
H.E. Day
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39217ACA.9C5D0A4D@heday.freeservers.com>, "H.E. Day"
<The### [at] heday freeserverscom> wrote:
> #2 There is mention in the HTML docs (at the end of the convolution
> matrix) of a blur matrix. Yet I can find no other references, anywhere
> in the docs. May I have a example, and usage for this feature, if it
> exists?
The blur matrix *is* the convolution matrix, I just called it a
different thing earlier in development.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
H.E. Day a écrit:
>
> #1 When I render a post processed animation, the frames of the
> animation do not get post processed. Instead, every frame is written to
> a file called *PP.* so I get only the last frame. This is obviously
> wrong. How do I turn this feature off?
PP for post-processing I suppose. I noticied a similar problem than
yours.
This process seems to keep the non-processed image intact and to create
a new image -based on it- renamed with 8 letters including PP. This mean
I have to use a very short name, max 6 letters.
I suppose that if you have an animation of "Final_Frame=999", your name
should be of 3 letters max. At the end of the calculation of the frames,
you'll have a serial of frame with 6 caracters and another serial with
those same caracters and ending by "PP", also 8 caraters.
Well, I hope I'm clear enough, my english is quite poor!
Another solution could be to rename each frame ending by "PP" with an
external program. But I don't know how to.
Anyone knows better?
Hoping this can help.
DEPerere
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
H.E. Day <The### [at] hedayfreeserverscom> wrote ...
> #1 When I render a post processed animation, the frames of the
> animation do not get post processed. Instead, every frame is written to
> a file called *PP.* so I get only the last frame. This is obviously
> wrong. How do I turn this feature off?
global_settings{
post_process{overwrite_file}
}
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DEPerere <per### [at] infomaniakch> wrote...
>
> This process seems to keep the non-processed image intact and to create
> a new image -based on it- renamed with 8 letters including PP. This mean
> I have to use a very short name, max 6 letters.
>
> I suppose that if you have an animation of "Final_Frame=999", your name
> should be of 3 letters max. At the end of the calculation of the frames,
> you'll have a serial of frame with 6 caracters and another serial with
> those same caracters and ending by "PP", also 8 caraters.
>
> Well, I hope I'm clear enough, my english is quite poor!
What you are saying is clear. I hadn't thought of the truncation that
occurs because of the 8 character limit in relation to animation files. Any
suggestions? Could we forget about the 8-character limit (and simply append
the "_PP" without truncating), or would that cause big problems for DOS? Is
there a better solution?
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If something in DOS doesn't like the non-8.3 file name it doesn't "pass go",
at least nothing I've ever seen has any recognition of a file like
foobar~1.tga, so it can cause trouble.
Windows version would be fine like that though ;-) if you could surpass the
naming limit in POV.
Bob
"Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:3921f499$1@news.povray.org...
|
| DEPerere <per### [at] infomaniakch> wrote...
| >
| > I suppose that if you have an animation of "Final_Frame=999", your name
| > should be of 3 letters max. At the end of the calculation of the frames,
| > you'll have a serial of frame with 6 characters and another serial with
| > those same characters and ending by "PP", also 8 characters.
|
| I hadn't thought of the truncation that
| occurs because of the 8 character limit in relation to animation files. Any
| suggestions? Could we forget about the 8-character limit (and simply append
| the "_PP" without truncating), or would that cause big problems for DOS? Is
| there a better solution?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 May 2000 21:21:08 -0400, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:
> Is there a better solution?
What about outputing animation frames to an "archive file" of some
type (ie ZIP file)? If you went this route, then there would only be
one file for all the frames, and its name would be easier to deal
with. The individual frames inside the archive could then have a pure
numerical sequence for their names. Something like 00000001.TGA could
be the first file name inside the archive, and 00000002.TGA could be
the second, and so on.
In case there is some objection to the compression of ZIP files,
remember that there is also provision for non-compressed ZIP files as
well. Of course, we could always use some other archive format. I just
mentioned this as an example case. If I'm not mistaken, DTA will work
with ZIP archives, for whatever that's worth.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> global_settings{
> post_process{overwrite_file}
> }
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I mean it.
--
H.E. Day
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> writes:
>
> What about outputing animation frames to an "archive file" of some
> type (ie ZIP file)? If you went this route, then there would only be
> one file for all the frames, and its name would be easier to deal
> with. The individual frames inside the archive could then have a pure
> numerical sequence for their names. Something like 00000001.TGA could
> be the first file name inside the archive, and 00000002.TGA could be
> the second, and so on.
>
> In case there is some objection to the compression of ZIP files,
For compression I suggest using zlib. This is the same as gzip and it
has the advantage that zlib is already included in POV-Ray.
Thomas
--
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: What you are saying is clear. I hadn't thought of the truncation that
: occurs because of the 8 character limit in relation to animation files. Any
: suggestions? Could we forget about the 8-character limit (and simply append
: the "_PP" without truncating), or would that cause big problems for DOS? Is
: there a better solution?
Why do every platform have to suffer from the limitation of just one
platform? Why do Unix, Win9x, NT, Mac and any other platform have to use
a limited version which is intended to one platform: DOS?
I would suggest some #ifdef's in the povray source code. If we are NOT
compiling for DOS, then just use as long file names as needed. If we are
compiling for DOS, then truncate and don't care about the consecuences.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry wrote:
>
> What about outputing animation frames to an "archive file" of some
> type (ie ZIP file)? If you went this route, then there would only be
What about creating a folder with the scene name and place the numbered
files there?
sig
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This one seems to make the most sense. Every platform
suports a directory. And even if you still stuck to
the 8.3 name for each of the files inside, going from
00000000.xxx to 99999999.xxx is just more frames than
I would want to render.
Mr. Art
Sigmund Kyrre Aas wrote:
> What about creating a folder with the scene name and place the numbered
> files there?
>
> sig
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> I would suggest some #ifdef's in the povray source code. If we are NOT
> compiling for DOS, then just use as long file names as needed. If we are
> compiling for DOS, then truncate and don't care about the consecuences.
>
I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PoD wrote:
> I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
Still quite a few using it from what I have heard. Chris Colefax
for example still uses the dos version for all of his include file
development work.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 May 2000 07:34:05 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I would suggest some #ifdef's in the povray source code. If we are NOT
>compiling for DOS, then just use as long file names as needed. If we are
>compiling for DOS, then truncate and don't care about the consecuences.
I would prefer Sigmund Kyrre Aas's idea of using a subdirectory for
animation frames output. If we are using DOS, then output the frames
into a subdirectory. The name of the subdirectory could be taken from
the "+O" command line parameter. Alternately, it could be named after
the parent POV scene file. Each frame in the subdirectory would be
sequentially named from 00000001.tga, to a possible 99999999.tga
(assuming a tga output format.)
This could be done conditionally with #ifdef's in the source code, and
make it a DOS-specific feature. If we'd rather, it could also be an
option for all platforms, by adding an option to POV's ini file, or
command line. That way, the end user could pick the behaviour that
suited them best.
I don't really like truncation at all. It's simply an awkward
arrangement.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:55:23 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
>I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
I do. I imagine that there would be several others as well. I also use
the Windows version, but if I need to squeeze the most out of my
available system resources, then the DOS version is my choice. There
have been several scenes that I could render with the DOS version
entirely in RAM, while the WIN95 version went into swap quite early.
This isn't a problem with POV, of course, but a characteristic of
using WIN95. DOS simply demands far less of my computer's resources,
which leaves more for POV-Ray.
I hope there will always be a DOS version of POV-Ray. I also hope that
it never gets to be a neglected orphan.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have measured this, and (to my surprise) the MSVC compile of WinPov
renders a bit faster than any DOS compile when there's no need for swapping
or when both have to swap. Of course when the scene uses just as much memory
to need swapping in windows but not in DOS, there may be a difference in
favor of the DOS compile, but I think it's a rarer situation.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This sounds like a good solution as well.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> writes:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:55:23 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
>
> >I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
>
> I do. I imagine that there would be several others as well. I also use
> the Windows version, but if I need to squeeze the most out of my
> available system resources, then the DOS version is my choice. There
> have been several scenes that I could render with the DOS version
> entirely in RAM, while the WIN95 version went into swap quite early.
> This isn't a problem with POV, of course, but a characteristic of
> using WIN95. DOS simply demands far less of my computer's resources,
> which leaves more for POV-Ray.
Have you tried Linux (or another free Unix)? I haven't compared it
directly in respect of POV-Ray, but I guess that it can be configured
to be almost as modest as DOS. A boot disc might be enough in your case.
Follow'up to povray.unix
Thomas
--
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 May 2000 03:53:24 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I have measured this, and (to my surprise) the MSVC compile of WinPov
>renders a bit faster than any DOS compile when there's no need for swapping
>or when both have to swap.
Unless I'm mistaken, not everyone can run the MSVC compile. Doesn't
that require a recent model of Pentium processor to work properly?
>Of course when the scene uses just as much memory
>to need swapping in windows but not in DOS, there may be a difference in
>favor of the DOS compile, but I think it's a rarer situation.
This is *exactly* the situation I was referring to. It isn't nearly as
rare as you make it sound. It has happened to me several times.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, not everyone can run the MSVC compile. Doesn't
> that require a recent model of Pentium processor to work properly?
The MSVC pentium II compile can be run on any windows machine as
far as I know. I have a PI 200 mmx and it runs with no problem.
In fact even though it is optimized for a PII I still realize a
little faster performance over the watcom compile of the program.
The standard Windows distribution is compiled with watcom PII
optimized so there is little difference.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> PoD wrote:
>
> > I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
>
> Still quite a few using it from what I have heard. Chris Colefax
> for example still uses the dos version for all of his include file
> development work.
>
OK, I didn't think that many people would be using it and I didn't mean
any offence.
However there's no reason to limit all other platforms to 8.3 filenames
anyway.
The proposal to use an #ifdef seems the best solution.
PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote in message
news:3922F223.BA027B9D@merlin.net.au...
> Warp wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest some #ifdef's in the povray source code. If we
are NOT
> > compiling for DOS, then just use as long file names as needed. If
we are
> > compiling for DOS, then truncate and don't care about the
consecuences.
> >
>
> I agree, how many people use the MS-DOS version?
I do for one, and my other box doesn't even have windoze installed.
I would accept Warp's suggestion though.
--
Alf
http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 May 2000 02:14:06 +0930, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
>The proposal to use an #ifdef seems the best solution.
Yes, but which #ifdef proposal? I hope you are refering to the one
that uses #ifdef to modify the DOS version to create subdirectories,
and place sequentially numbered files into it.
There was another proposal that involved #ifdef and filename
truncation/mangling, without subdirectory creation. I don't like that
idea nearly as well.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
: Yes, but which #ifdef proposal? I hope you are refering to the one
: that uses #ifdef to modify the DOS version to create subdirectories,
: and place sequentially numbered files into it.
: There was another proposal that involved #ifdef and filename
: truncation/mangling, without subdirectory creation. I don't like that
: idea nearly as well.
I really don't care which one as long as I get long filenames here :)
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
