 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi. I was wondering if for the next version of MegaPOV, someone could make
the post-processed focal blur more like the real focal blur. You know, where
you can specify a point in 3D space you want it to consider the center and
then blur out from there, not from the camera. Can it be done? Is it already
possible and I have to go hide my head in the sand out of embarrassment from
not having seen it before? Thanks in advance.
--
Anthony Bennett
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just set focal_point to be whatever you want, like:
camera
{
//blah
aperture whatever
blur_samples whatever
confidence whatever
variance whatever
focal_point wherever //This is where it's focused at
}
(P.S. To people who know much more than me: is this right?)
(P.S.2: is there a mathematical relation between the aperture and the
f-stops on a camera?)
--
Me (Daniel Lin (dli### [at] yahoo com))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel, thank you for your suggestion, but I'm afraid you misunderstood. For
regular POV, there is a slow, slow version that works as you described. For
MegaPOV, this can be done after rendering, in a post processing pass, but
there is no such thing as a focal_point. It goes from the camera outwards.
I'm asking for the post processed version to have this "focal_point"
feature, like the regular POV. Understand now?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yep. Oooh, then I have no idea what the answer is. I'd like to know, too,
then.
BTW, does anybody know what relation (if any) there is between the apeture
setting and the actual f-stops on cameras?
--
Me (Daniel Lin (dli### [at] yahoocom))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
>Hi. I was wondering if for the next version of MegaPOV, someone could make
>the post-processed focal blur more like the real focal blur. You know, where
>you can specify a point in 3D space you want it to consider the center and
>then blur out from there, not from the camera. Can it be done? Is it already
>possible and I have to go hide my head in the sand out of embarrassment from
>not having seen it before? Thanks in advance.
I honestly do not think that is possible, as post-processing happens to the
2d bitmap, not the actual scene file.
Oldstench................
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
: For
: regular POV, there is a slow, slow version that works as you described.
It's not that slow if you know how to use it. And it's a lot more accurate
than the post-process focal blur.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
post_process has access to depth information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's not that slow if you know how to use it. And it's a lot more
accurate
> than the post-process focal blur.
Alright. Tell me how to make it silky-smooth and still be not-so-slow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
: Alright. Tell me how to make it silky-smooth and still be not-so-slow.
Set variance to 0 and choose a proper blur_samples.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel Lin wrote:
>
> Yep. Oooh, then I have no idea what the answer is. I'd like to know, too,
> then.
>
> BTW, does anybody know what relation (if any) there is between the apeture
> setting and the actual f-stops on cameras?
Since the following macro works:
http://www.wozzeck.net/images/DoF.html
it seems that aperture has the "right" value... I mean that f-stops are
actually focal-length-divided-by... values. Eg. your nice 300mm f/2.8
has an "aperture" of 107 mm. The problem is to determine the "focal
length" of your camera, which is certainly not the one you get in 24x36
mm. See the macro page and source for more details.
--
François DISPOT -- http://www.wozzeck.net
__ __ __ __ _
| | / \ / / |_ / |/
\/\/ \__/ /_ /_ |__ \_ |\
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote...
> Hi. I was wondering if for the next version of MegaPOV, someone could make
> the post-processed focal blur more like the real focal blur. You know,
where
> you can specify a point in 3D space you want it to consider the center and
> then blur out from there, not from the camera. Can it be done? Is it
already
> possible and I have to go hide my head in the sand out of embarrassment
from
> not having seen it before? Thanks in advance.
It's possible... but you have to do a little bit of (simple) math and live
with the fact that it is an estimate (based on an ad-hoc algorithm... not
really based on reality).
The following untested code should be close to what you want:
#declare CamLoc = <camera location goes here>;
#declare FocalPt = <focal point goes here>;
#declare Depth = <depth of focal range>;
#declare DistToCtr = vlength(CamLoc-FocalPt);
#declare DistToStart = DistToCtr - Depth/2;
global_settings{
post_process{
focal_blur{ DistToStart, Depth, 5, true }
}}
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What about the rest of the parameters?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks, Nathan. I'll be trying it out later.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
: What about the rest of the parameters?
focal_point? aperture? Should be clear.
confidence? Doesn't seem to have any effect when variance=0 (or at least
I don't notice any difference).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2001 15:09:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
>Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
>: What about the rest of the parameters?
>
> focal_point? aperture? Should be clear.
> confidence? Doesn't seem to have any effect when variance=0 (or at least
>I don't notice any difference).
True. Though setting variance to 0 might cause it to be slower than
setting variance to a suitably low number and confidence suitably high;
at least then POV can bail out when it actually attains that low variance
and high confidence. When variance is zero, you require it to use the
maximum number of samples for each pixel.
--
#local R=rgb 99;#local P=R-R;#local F=pigment{gradient x}box{0,1pigment{gradient
y pigment_map{[.5F pigment_map{[.3R][.3F color_map{[.15red 99][.15P]}rotate z*45
translate x]}]#local H=pigment{gradient y color_map{[.5P][.5R]}scale 1/3}[.5F
pigment_map{[.3R][.3H][.7H][.7R]}]}}}camera{location.5-3*z}//only my opinions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: True. Though setting variance to 0 might cause it to be slower than
: setting variance to a suitably low number and confidence suitably high;
: at least then POV can bail out when it actually attains that low variance
: and high confidence. When variance is zero, you require it to use the
: maximum number of samples for each pixel.
I have came to the conclusion that variance 0 is the only way of making
it work. For some reason if you set variance to anything higher than 0,
no matter how small, you'll get graininess. (Of course there might be some
exceptions with certain scenes, but that's what I have noticed with most
scenes.)
It seems to be a "fact" that the human eye forgives more easily random
noise than sharp color transitions, and montecarlo sampling is (I think)
based mainly on this principle. However, random noise has always bothered
me and I have never liked it; I almost prefer the sharp color transitions.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
