I have no idea what MegaPovPlus is up to and perhaps someone could
enlighten me. 

	In linux Gimp can do it better. In Windows Adobe has a free picture
editor that is essentially everything of PhotoShop save the things
needed for printing which does it better. 

	I have not dug into post processing but if it does not stand alone then
what use is it? 

-- 
1938: Robert Goddard lauches first liquid fueled rocket.
1945: Ballistic missiles fall on London.
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 66

Post a reply to this message

In article <39B### [at] ijnet>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote:

> 	I have no idea what MegaPovPlus is up to and perhaps someone could
> enlighten me. 
> 
> 	In linux Gimp can do it better. In Windows Adobe has a free picture
> editor that is essentially everything of PhotoShop save the things
> needed for printing which does it better. 
> 
> 	I have not dug into post processing but if it does not stand alone then
> what use is it?

It's main advantage is automation, you can define a set of filters to be 
applied and have it automatically done when the render is finished. For 
example, you could have a logo automatically added by just adding a 
couple lines. If you want a higher resolution image, you can just render 
it at a higher resolution, and don't have to go through and re-process 
the image.
It also has information that other programs can't get, so there are some 
filters which would be impossible to make as a stand-alone program, the 
focal blur, depth, and normal filters for example. In future versions, 
you will be able to have per-object filters. Also, it has access to the 
full-precision color values, while other programs can only access the 
values after being clipped to a 0-1 range and usually reduced to 8 bits 
per component.
And finally, many post_process filters can be controlled by pigments, 
which would be much more difficult to do in an external program(you 
would have to render an image of the pigment separately).

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

> I have not dug into post processing but if it does not stand alone then
> what use is it?

Besides the stuff Chris said, you should take a look at the animations H. E.
Day made, one was a wizard guy and the other was a space ship, that use post
processing.  They're truly unique.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Huff" wrote:
> If you want a higher resolution image, you can just render
> it at a higher resolution, and don't have to go through and
> re-process the image.

Many post-process features are *not* resolution independent. For example, if
your focal blur looks perfect in one resolution, it looks completely
different when the resolution is much higher or lower. Same thing goes for
lots of the other PP features.

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote...
> "Chris Huff" wrote:
> > If you want a higher resolution image, you can just render
> > it at a higher resolution, and don't have to go through and
> > re-process the image.
>
> Many post-process features are *not* resolution independent. For example,
if
> your focal blur looks perfect in one resolution, it looks completely
> different when the resolution is much higher or lower. Same thing goes for
> lots of the other PP features.

Within the range of the maximum pixel blur value, PP focal blur is
_supposed_ to scale correctly with image resolution.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

In article <39baa2ef@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> Many post-process features are *not* resolution independent. For 
> example, if your focal blur looks perfect in one resolution, it looks 
> completely different when the resolution is much higher or lower. 
> Same thing goes for lots of the other PP features.

Are you talking about my blur filters, or Nathans? With the exception of 
the convolution and other filters which operate directly on pixels, my 
filters should be independent of resolution. I know they aren't, I just 
haven't gotten around to fixing it yet.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

The GIMP has scripting built in, in the Linux ver and *I believe* the independant
Win9X port.

Derek

Chris Huff wrote:

> In article <39B### [at] ijnet>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote:
>
> >       I have no idea what MegaPovPlus is up to and perhaps someone could
> > enlighten me.
> >
> >       In linux Gimp can do it better. In Windows Adobe has a free picture
> > editor that is essentially everything of PhotoShop save the things
> > needed for printing which does it better.
> >
> >       I have not dug into post processing but if it does not stand alone then
> > what use is it?
>
> It's main advantage is automation, you can define a set of filters to be
> applied and have it automatically done when the render is finished. For
> example, you could have a logo automatically added by just adding a
> couple lines. If you want a higher resolution image, you can just render
> it at a higher resolution, and don't have to go through and re-process
> the image.
> It also has information that other programs can't get, so there are some
> filters which would be impossible to make as a stand-alone program, the
> focal blur, depth, and normal filters for example. In future versions,
> you will be able to have per-object filters. Also, it has access to the
> full-precision color values, while other programs can only access the
> values after being clipped to a 0-1 range and usually reduced to 8 bits
> per component.
> And finally, many post_process filters can be controlled by pigments,
> which would be much more difficult to do in an external program(you
> would have to render an image of the pigment separately).
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff
> Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
> TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
>
> <><

Post a reply to this message

"D. Stark" wrote:

> The GIMP has scripting built in, in the Linux ver and *I believe* the independant
> Win9X port.

yes, but I think Image Magick might be better for batch processing.

Post a reply to this message

is there only one gimp port to win9x?  i have one and i must say, it's
pretty good.  if i ever have three computers, i think i'll make one of
them linux.  people have said a lot of good things about linux.  of
course, i could have multiple os's on one machine, but i am of the
opinion that it's not worth any headaches that MAY arrise.

"D. Stark" wrote:
> 
> The GIMP has scripting built in, in the Linux ver and *I believe* the independant
> Win9X port.
> 
> Derek
> 
> Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> > In article <39B### [at] ijnet>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote:
> >
> > >       I have no idea what MegaPovPlus is up to and perhaps someone could
> > > enlighten me.
> > >
> > >       In linux Gimp can do it better. In Windows Adobe has a free picture
> > > editor that is essentially everything of PhotoShop save the things
> > > needed for printing which does it better.
> > >
> > >       I have not dug into post processing but if it does not stand alone then
> > > what use is it?
> >
> > It's main advantage is automation, you can define a set of filters to be
> > applied and have it automatically done when the render is finished. For
> > example, you could have a logo automatically added by just adding a
> > couple lines. If you want a higher resolution image, you can just render
> > it at a higher resolution, and don't have to go through and re-process
> > the image.
> > It also has information that other programs can't get, so there are some
> > filters which would be impossible to make as a stand-alone program, the
> > focal blur, depth, and normal filters for example. In future versions,
> > you will be able to have per-object filters. Also, it has access to the
> > full-precision color values, while other programs can only access the
> > values after being clipped to a 0-1 range and usually reduced to 8 bits
> > per component.
> > And finally, many post_process filters can be controlled by pigments,
> > which would be much more difficult to do in an external program(you
> > would have to render an image of the pigment separately).
> >
> > --
> > Christopher James Huff
> > Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
> > TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
> >
> > <><

Post a reply to this message