Latest Build

Whaat · Post by **Whaat** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:32 pm

YESSSSSS!!!!!!!

Great work dougal2!!

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:31 pm

Nice dougal, where do we grab it ?

dougal2 · Post by **dougal2** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:59 am

CTZn wrote:Nice dougal, where do we grab it ?

you can't just yet. first I need to tidy up the code a little, and then I'll post a patch for Ono to include in his release.

I think it's better that Ono compiles and releases the binaries for now - they are:
a) smaller than mine (560k vs 2.8meg)
b) proven to work on other people's systems.

Additioanlly I'd like to wait just a little longer before I relesase the patch just so that Ono isn't having to keep patching the source with lots of silly little changes.

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:57 am

great! much more compact!!!!

joegiampaoli · Post by **joegiampaoli** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:52 am

looks cool!

Maybe you can provide us a "test drive" for all of us to test, and if we come up with something else we can tell you and then you can send it off to Ono with all the fix-ups.

dougal2 · Post by **dougal2** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:57 am

ok, here is a binary of violet release 12 patch 1 beta 1

known problems:

* will crash on exit (something to do with the log window)

joegiampaoli · Post by **joegiampaoli** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:38 am

dougal2
It's really nice!
Thx for all the effort, I don't have any more tips or ideas.
I say its fine, I don't know about what crash at exit, since i'm wining it.

But I suppose in windows something bad must happen.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:47 pm

Is it possible to speed up things like bloom and stuff? On photoshop diffuse glow is kindof the same but takes way less time. I probably don't know what I'm talking about tho lol and Violet probably needs to take into account the actual brightness and stuff or whatever but there must be some way to speed it up. Also on our computer it takes like 5 minutes to go to 50% size and longer to go back to full size which is strange.

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:24 pm

Anthonty wrote:don't know what I'm talking about tho

Hey mate ! What I can say is that PhTSHp takes a LOT of disk space, wich I don't want for Indigo. Get another reference ;°)

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:23 pm

AND Violet works with depth, and not with a plane pic like PS

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:24 pm

why posts can't be deleted anymore, after someone else replied?
Doublepost, sry

joegiampaoli · Post by **joegiampaoli** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:29 pm

I have noticed that plugins like photoshop or gimp are more kind of a simulated bloom effect, while in indigo it kind of calculates a real camera lens.... I know it takes a hell of a time to process but I surely like more the bloom and glare in indigo, they are more realistic.

Post by **OnoSendai** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:34 pm

joegiampaoli wrote:I have noticed that plugins like photoshop or gimp are more kind of a simulated bloom effect, while in indigo it kind of calculates a real camera lens.... I know it takes a hell of a time to process but I surely like more the bloom and glare in indigo, they are more realistic.

The bloom in Indigo is just a simple Gaussian blur, however it operates on HDR floating point pixel values, so in that sense it's more accurate, but also slower.
It could be sped up quite a lot though, in particular for supersampled images - it's not really necessary to treat each superpixel separately for the purposes of computing the bloom

dougal2 · Post by **dougal2** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:34 pm

Kram1032 wrote:AND Violet works with depth, and not with a plane pic like PS (-CS3, CS3 can do 3D, but surely not from a png and it wont be able to do open .igi...)

um.. no it doesn't. The images are floating point, and in XYZ colour space but they do not contain any depth information.

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:35 pm

Latest Build

Who is online