Fiber Image by Sphinxmorpher
Carl
 |
Fiber Image by Sphinxmorpher http://www.filterforge.com/filters/4743.html  I'm going to live forever or die trying ........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 4:55 am | ||||
|
Carl
|
Nifty -  I'm going to live forever or die trying ........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 4:57 am | ||||
| Kraellin |
yup, that's freaky cool. i might even do some art with this. filters, filters, filters... NO FILTERS FOR YOU!!!
Craig |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 2:13 pm | ||||
Crapadilla
 |
Nice one, Sphinx! --- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid Mac version!" |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 6:40 am | ||||
| voldemort |
Great effect --maybe its just me but the cappacity to preserve the source photo's details would be nice--I modded my own version to reflect this since I actually had a project this filter fit the bill for perfcetly in many ways and by preserving the detail the effect is quite eye popping
might want to add that as a check mark option for the end user or a slider to control detail levels like I did for my port lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 9:39 am | ||||
Sphinx.
 |
I don't follow..could you elaborate? Is is the noise distortion or perlin noise detail sliders or something else you are talking about? | |||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 9:48 am | ||||
| voldemort |
here is an example I added a slight surface deform as well to the photo but even without the deform it looks --well differnt --in the picture I was refering to I needed the additional detail to show lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 11:30 am | ||||
| voldemort |
example 2 lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 11:39 am | ||||
| voldemort |
example 3 lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 11:39 am | ||||
| voldemort |
final example lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 11:40 am | ||||
| voldemort |
Dont get me wrong your default version gives a great illusion of depth where as mine lacks the same depth but the option would be nice to use either method
I simply added a few options Pre deform --map the photo to the shape some what ****refraction 0.1-0.75 (took the hight map and reduced contrast first) ****offset 2-25% (all controlled with one slider) Darken recesses --a blend of both your method and mine pre-sharpen image **** sharpens the image prior to deform --helps with details still showing invert height --instead of veins --recesses intact method do I deform or simply use a height map height style allows you to choose what chanel to use as source (default was b but some photos the other channels worked better) Fiber Image-b.ffxml lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 11:46 am | ||||
| voldemort |
i have been working --only off and on -- on a port that likes you takes several layers initially and deforms the photo slightly at pre blend stage so when the blend occurs it realy implies differnt directions and depths not done with it yet though but if you would like I would be more then happy to upload it in this post for you to look at lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 11:55 am | ||||
|
Sphinx.
|
Looks interesting - like something is going on "under the skin" .. actually reminds me of some of the early stages of the development (before I adjusted the perlin contrasts).
I will check out your example and see if it fits in for an update (I might simplify things a bit..), you mention "offset" and "refraction", but wont that break the seamless processing?
Sure |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 12:13 pm | ||||
| voldemort |
here is the second port i made based upon sphagetti and Like I said Im combining methods lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 12:46 pm | ||||
| voldemort |
Like I said Im combining the two and that one isnt ready yet but here is this port if you loke Spaghetti-b.ffxml lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 12:48 pm | ||||
| voldemort |
but wont that break the seamless processing[U]
if your refering to seamless tile --no but if you are refering to non uniform images that are rectangular hasnt broken any ive thrown at it since you asked unless you set the deform really high but the majority where fine lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 12:58 pm | ||||
| Kraellin |
volde, those first few you posted look a lot like sprayed fiberglass. the 'strings' are a bit long, but nonetheless a definite fiberglass coating look.
i also like the inverted ones. reminds me of the 'wormcraft' filter a bit. filters, filters, filters... NO FILTERS FOR YOU!!!
Craig |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 1:30 pm | ||||
| voldemort |
well even if he dosnt plan on any changes to his ""considering how excellent his is allready"" they are there for download --
and yeah I hadnt though of fibre glass but your right  lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 1:56 pm | ||||
| Kraellin |
yup, good filter and it's given me a couple of ideas. i may have to study this one under the hood. filters, filters, filters... NO FILTERS FOR YOU!!!
Craig |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 2:14 pm | ||||
|
Sphinx.
|
Allright .. I've been looking more closely at your modification, and it would be a great addition to have this coated fibers like functionality.
The refraction module however seems to add unpleasant noise even with very gentle settings, and the texture mapping style IMO works much better with the offset trick alone. Both the refraction and offset mapping method try to do the same thing: map the image on the bump surface.. so why not just stick to the better one of them? |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 2:32 pm | ||||
| voldemort |
here is a better example of the second one---and Ive found that to much offset -mapping distorts the base image and that to much refraction spoils it to so thats why I tend to combine the both of them for the effect --and yes you really do have to keep the refraction under control --powerful stuff man, powerful stuff
 lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 2:37 pm | ||||
|
Sphinx.
|
ok.. but that sounds like a general statement... I'm talking about the actual case here - the filter produces high frequency patterns - the refraction just turns it into sandpiles
Moreover theoretically speaking refraction is not what we want to achieve here (there's no light being refracted) The offset mapping is not nearly as drastic here - however the profile gradients could pose a problem with non square images and more extreme settings in general - I think I'll add a litte trick to avoid problems  |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 2:51 pm | ||||
|
Sphinx.
|
here's a preview only using offset mapping and few changes in the processing chain: |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 3:02 pm | ||||
| voldemort |
if you look at your example the life preserver is a little stretched in both axis no longer quite round ---that was what I was refering to and why I use a little of both as far as the refraction goes Ive found that if you use a brightness-contrast component and turn contrast WAY down then set your refraction slider to only go from 0.1-0.5 it works okay then they still have full slider control without the sand pools lets all whine for a wine port |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 3:21 pm | ||||
|
Sphinx.
|
Okay I see what you mean - its because the offset is based on straight horizontal and vertical offsets.. I will experiment some more with this (trial runs out tomorrow..sigh)
I don't see how running it through refraction helps that.. it only hides it? |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 3:42 pm | ||||