This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > PainShop Pro Graphics > May 2006 > ...at the General Store
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
...at the General Store
|
|
| David Gray 2006-05-24, 7:05 am |
| underprocessable | |
| Joëlle 2006-05-24, 7:37 pm |
|
"David Gray" <kadamar@zeuter.com> wrote in message news:4473c536_1@cnews...
>
> In the original,the shopkeeper's face was slightly blurred so I decided to
> do a graphic with VP5
>
> David
>
>
Wonderful!
:-)
Joëlle
| |
| Nightingail 2006-05-24, 7:37 pm |
|
David Gray wrote:
> In the original,the shopkeeper's face was slightly blurred so I
> decided to do a graphic with VP5
>
> David
I think this image is perfect for the treatment that you chose for it,
David. It reminds me of (dare I say it?) Normal Rockwell's work - and I do
like Norman Rockwell ;-)
Gail
--
Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com
| |
|
|
David Gray wrote:
> In the original,the shopkeeper's face was slightly blurred so I
> decided to do a graphic with VP5
David, the paint effect you chose works well on the larger areas
(wall, counter), but not on the details like the face, watch, jars.
The detailed areas look like a grainy photo and make the whole more
of a photo than a painting. Especially the face is still a photo. To
me, this makes the whole result fall flat, meaning it has no appeal
to me, unlike the trilliums, where Buzz Pro does an attractive and
good job. In this image, I think an extra effect is needed to make
it a more convincing painting.
Hope you can see what I see.
Joske
| |
| Michelle 2006-05-25, 7:11 am |
|
"Nightingail" <gail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:44747731$1_1@cnews...
>
> David Gray wrote:
I[color=darkred]
>
> I think this image is perfect for the treatment that you chose
for it,
> David. It reminds me of (dare I say it?) Normal Rockwell's
work - and I do
> like Norman Rockwell ;-)
>
> Gail
>
> --
> Nightingail's Gallery
> www.nightingail.com
>
>
I'm tagging my reply onto Gail's rather than yours, David because
I totally agree with her :-). The second I saw the image, it
also reminded me of Norman Rockwell's work and I like it (his and
yours) :-))
--
Michelle ;-)
Michelle's Paint Shop Pro & More!
http://members.aol.com/Mish234/index.html
Original tubes, links to plugins, tutorials, fonts & more.
| |
| Carrie Osmo 2006-05-25, 7:11 am |
|
Nice selection of image
well suited to this treatment
good work
carrie
"David Gray" <kadamar@zeuter.com> wrote in message news:4473c536_1@cnews...
>
> In the original,the shopkeeper's face was slightly blurred so I decided to do a graphic with VP5
>
> David
>
>
| |
| David Gray 2006-05-25, 7:11 am |
|
Thank you for your comments Joske. I agree with what you say and will try to
modify it a bit; perhaps some canvas texture might improve it.
David
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:4474c7f1_2@cnews...
>
> David Gray wrote:
>
>
> David, the paint effect you chose works well on the larger areas
> (wall, counter), but not on the details like the face, watch, jars.
> The detailed areas look like a grainy photo and make the whole more
> of a photo than a painting. Especially the face is still a photo. To
> me, this makes the whole result fall flat, meaning it has no appeal
> to me, unlike the trilliums, where Buzz Pro does an attractive and
> good job. In this image, I think an extra effect is needed to make
> it a more convincing painting.
>
> Hope you can see what I see.
>
> Joske
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
I rather like the remdition and thought it looked Normal Rockwellish as
Nightingail mentioned. Could somebody please explain to a beginner what
"VP5" and "Buzz Pro" are?
Tom
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:4474c7f1_2@cnews...
>
> David Gray wrote:
>
>
> David, the paint effect you chose works well on the larger areas
> (wall, counter), but not on the details like the face, watch, jars.
> The detailed areas look like a grainy photo and make the whole more
> of a photo than a painting. Especially the face is still a photo. To
> me, this makes the whole result fall flat, meaning it has no appeal
> to me, unlike the trilliums, where Buzz Pro does an attractive and
> good job. In this image, I think an extra effect is needed to make
> it a more convincing painting.
>
> Hope you can see what I see.
>
> Joske
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Tom" <n.a.n.c.y@comcast.net> wrote in news:4475cf10_1@cnews:
>
> I rather like the remdition and thought it looked Normal
Rockwellish as
> Nightingail mentioned. Could somebody please explain to a
beginner what
> "VP5" and "Buzz Pro" are?
> Tom
Virtual Painter 5 and Buzz Pro are both plugins you can use with
Paint Shop Pro to achieve different effects. VP5 provides a
variety of painterly effects. Buzz Pro is more of a simplifier
type filter in that it simplifies detail, again producing an
artistic effect but without having different canvas backgrounds,
etc. You can google for them.
Regards,
JoeB
[snipped]
| |
|
|
Tom wrote:
> "Joske" wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I rather like the remdition and thought it looked Normal
> Rockwellish as Nightingail mentioned. Could somebody please
> explain to a beginner what "VP5" and "Buzz Pro" are?
Virtual Painter and Buzz Pro are filters or plugins, they are not
part of PSP but you can use them within PSP.
Let me invite you to take a second look :-) The mistake viewers of
paint effects on photos tend to make is this: a scene, the photo,
may remind of a painting. In this case, a scene that could have been
painted by Norman Rockwell. But a scene is just the props or the
settings - there are no paint effects and styles involved yet.
A plugin, Paint Shop Pro, or even a skilled hand or all together,
are what apply the paint effect to the photo or scene. Since this
group is about graphics and not photos, and graphics include
painting, this is where comments about the applied techniques come
in. Are they convincing, were they applied well, do they
successfully overlay and transform the photo so that it becomes a
graphic work.
My constructive comments to David are in that latter area. However
nice the photographed scene is, David is aiming at a painting. It's
not just about how something looks at first glance, it's about how
it holds up at second glance - and in this case, the photo shines
through and that does not match well with the painted areas.
Besides, though David himself did not say this is an imitation of
Rockwell's painting style, it is not how Rockwell applied his brush.
David does some very appealing work on other scenes with Buzz Pro,
so I'm sure he is after the best effect. Maybe you too, if you look
again, can see that his image is open to more work to make it more
convincing and appealing.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-26, 7:02 am |
|
David Gray wrote:
>
> Thank you for your comments Joske. I agree with what you say and will try to
> modify it a bit; perhaps some canvas texture might improve it.
See if it helps any to run the Median filter, Edge Preserving Smooth
at very high values, or Salt And Pepper at defaults but with both
checkboxes checked before using VP5. Reducing the image size before
running VP5 might be helpful too.
| |
|
|
JoeB
Looked it up. Buzz Pro is a bit expensive. Can you or anyone direct me to
tutorials utilizing the regular effects on PSP9 to obtain approximately the
same results?
Tom
"JoeB" <myemail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97CE6B5791F4JoeB@216.191.232.194...
>
> "Tom" <n.a.n.c.y@comcast.net> wrote in news:4475cf10_1@cnews:
>
>[snipped]
>
> Virtual Painter 5 and Buzz Pro are both plugins you can use with
> Paint Shop Pro to achieve different effects. VP5 provides a
> variety of painterly effects. Buzz Pro is more of a simplifier
> type filter in that it simplifies detail, again producing an
> artistic effect but without having different canvas backgrounds,
> etc. You can google for them.
>
> Regards,
>
> JoeB
>
> [snipped]
>
| |
| David Gray 2006-05-26, 7:27 pm |
|
Here is the website for VP5 ...you can download a trial copy.
http://www.virtualpainter5.com/vp5index.html
David
"Tom" <n.a.n.c.y@comcast.net> wrote in message news:4475cf10_1@cnews...
>
> I rather like the remdition and thought it looked Normal Rockwellish as
> Nightingail mentioned. Could somebody please explain to a beginner what
> "VP5" and "Buzz Pro" are?
> Tom
> "Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:4474c7f1_2@cnews...
>
>
>
| |
|
|
| Nightingail 2006-05-26, 7:27 pm |
|
Tom wrote:
> JoeB
>
> Looked it up. Buzz Pro is a bit expensive. Can you or anyone direct
> me to tutorials utilizing the regular effects on PSP9 to obtain
> approximately the same results?
> Tom
I don't know if it's possible to produce exactly the same results. I tried
for quite awhile, and the closest I was able to get was by using PSP's
Salt-and-Pepper filter. Just experiment with the settings. You could start
with Speck size of around 5, Sensitivity around 7, Include all lower speck
sizes checked, Use aggressive action unchecked.
In addition to the above suggestion, there are a number of free plugins that
you could try. Even though, again not exactly like BuzzPro, the results can
be quite pleasing, especially if you're willing to put in some time and
effort to experiment with settings, combinations of PSP's native effects and
filters, etc.
Check out Ilya's Simplifier:
http://photoshop.msk.ru/as/index.html
and the Xero plugins:
http://www.xero-graphics.co.uk/
There are also some PSP scripts around that you may enjoy. I have a pastel
script on my site that folks seem to like:
http://www.justkiss.com/gallery/nightingail/
and there are many more available elsewhere. Have a look at this site for
links, if you haven't already:
http://www.psplinks.com/
Personally, I prefer experimenting with combinations rather than applying a
filter or script "straight no chaser," so to speak. YMMV ;-)
Gail
--
Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com
| |
|
|
Nightingail wrote:
> Tom wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I don't know if it's possible to produce exactly the same
> results.
> [ ]
> Personally, I prefer experimenting with combinations rather than
> applying a filter or script "straight no chaser," so to speak.
> YMMV ;-)
You know I agree with you on this :-)
But I find myself having to make an exception for Buzz Pro, purely
on what I have seen here from David. This is one good and special
filter, can't help saying it. It seems to always interact well with
the photo, I never see traces of the photo left, or glitches where
it didn't interpret areas well. They may be there, but not
immediately visible to my very critical eye.
And the outcomes look appealing, neither here nor there in the sense
that you can't quite tell if it's supposed to be a watercolor
technique or a photo effect... it's dreamy.
Hope I don't lose my membership card for the PSP Purist Society over
this, but I really like this filter :-)
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
http://www.mrsikhnet.com/2005/07/pu...ng-bhangra.html
| |
| Nightingail 2006-05-26, 7:27 pm |
|
Joske wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Virtual Painter and Buzz Pro are filters or plugins, they are not
> part of PSP but you can use them within PSP.
>
> Let me invite you to take a second look :-) The mistake viewers of
> paint effects on photos tend to make is this: a scene, the photo,
> may remind of a painting. In this case, a scene that could have been
> painted by Norman Rockwell. But a scene is just the props or the
> settings - there are no paint effects and styles involved yet.
>
> A plugin, Paint Shop Pro, or even a skilled hand or all together,
> are what apply the paint effect to the photo or scene. Since this
> group is about graphics and not photos, and graphics include
> painting, this is where comments about the applied techniques come
> in. Are they convincing, were they applied well, do they
> successfully overlay and transform the photo so that it becomes a
> graphic work.
>
> My constructive comments to David are in that latter area. However
> nice the photographed scene is, David is aiming at a painting. It's
> not just about how something looks at first glance, it's about how
> it holds up at second glance - and in this case, the photo shines
> through and that does not match well with the painted areas.
> Besides, though David himself did not say this is an imitation of
> Rockwell's painting style, it is not how Rockwell applied his brush.
>
> David does some very appealing work on other scenes with Buzz Pro,
> so I'm sure he is after the best effect. Maybe you too, if you look
> again, can see that his image is open to more work to make it more
> convincing and appealing.
>
> Joske
> --
> http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
Yes, the scene itself reminded me of Rockwell, and overall I found it to be
a very appealing photo manipulation, albeit not a painting simulation. If
David said that his intention was to mimic a painting, I must have missed
it. So my question to David is: Were you trying to simulate a painting?
I can only speak for myself here, but when I do this type of photo
manipulation, my goal is usually to produce an interesting digital graphic,
not to mimic paintings. While in the process, I may choose to incorporate
some of what are considered painterly effects, the overall impression I hope
to achieve is that of an interesting piece of digital art in and of itself,
not a simulation of a painting. I realize that many, many people do indeed
want to simulate paintings, and in those cases, Joske, your comments are
very helpful, especially, as you said, not many people realize that they
need to look closer at the details.
Gail
--
Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com
| |
|
|
Nightingail wrote:
> Joske wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Yes, the scene itself reminded me of Rockwell, and overall I
> found it to be a very appealing photo manipulation, albeit not a
> painting simulation. If David said that his intention was to
> mimic a painting, I must have missed it. So my question to David
> is: Were you trying to simulate a painting?
> I can only speak for myself here, but when I do this type of
> photo manipulation, my goal is usually to produce an interesting
> digital graphic, not to mimic paintings. While in the process, I
> may choose to incorporate some of what are considered painterly
> effects, the overall impression I hope to achieve is that of an
> interesting piece of digital art in and of itself, not a
> simulation of a painting. I realize that many, many people do
> indeed want to simulate paintings, and in those cases, Joske,
> your comments are very helpful, especially, as you said, not many
> people realize that they need to look closer at the details.
Agreement that you can only speak for yourself, as can anyone.
It doesn't, shouldn't, hurt to consider another view on things we
occupy ourselves with. Especially not if they are views from people
who we know have thought about, or learned, or have a knack for, a
genuine interest in, these things.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
http://www.mrsikhnet.com/2005/07/pu...ng-bhangra.html
| |
|
|
Joske-- thanks for your timely response. Have tried the three procedures
you demonstrated in the email below on a couple of my photos, and see how
they can work. I plan to experiment further as well as to download another
trial version of Buzz Pro (after our exchange I realized I had an older,
outdated trial version on PSP9). I have been following your comments in the
various emails (e.g., "Some comments on the paint posts" of May 23) and
downloaded a couple of scripts from your website at
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/gif-index.html as well as enjoyed your
sensitive cat photos (I also am a cat lover). Thanks again.
Tom
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:4476f128_3@cnews...
>
> Tom wrote:
>
>
>
> Are you sure you want to learn? Judging by your lack of response to
> my explanation about what you should look for in painting over
> photos, you may not want to go through elaborate steps. The native
> PSP effects to achieve paint(erly) results usually take a little
> more effort and combining than a filter, you see.
>
> Besides, Buzz Pro does a very good job I haven't seen in PSP steps
> or other filters before.
>
> Nevertheless, here's a few simple steps from me coming somewhat
> close (see screenshot).
>
> Joske
> --
> http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-26, 7:27 pm |
|
Tom wrote:
>
> JoeB
>
> Looked it up. Buzz Pro is a bit expensive. Can you or anyone direct me to
> tutorials utilizing the regular effects on PSP9 to obtain approximately the
> same results?
I don't have Buzz Pro but one time I looked into this. I believe
Buzz Pro is based on a patented hierarchical segmentation using
rank order filters. This is going to make reproducing the effect in
PSP rather tricky.
Rank order filters are those that somehow sort the values of pixels
in the filter window (as opposed to doing arithmetic with them or
changing them based on some condition being met). The only rank order
filters I am sure exist in PSP are the Median, Erode and Dilate
filters. Median chooses a pixel value from a sorted set such that
there are as many values less than the chosen one as there are values
greater than it. Erode chooses the minimum value in a sorted set of
pixels values. Dilate chooses the maximum value from a sorted set of
pixels values. There might be other rank order filters in PSP
disguised as something else but I don't know if that's the case.
Segmentation means dividing the image up into areas which meet some
uniformity criteria you've establish (and/or possibly other criteria
too like size of area or number of areas). Uniformity means finding
regions in which all the adjacent pixel colors resemble each other
to a certain degree so that, for example, all the colors in the region
could be replaced by a single representative color. You can't do real
segmentation in PSP but you can fake it a little.
Hierarchical means that there are various available levels of detail.
At the highest LOD are the pixels. At the next level the pixels are
combined into sets of very small regions of very uniform color. At
the next LOD those sets are combined into somewhat larger regions
with less uniform color. At the next LOD the sets from the previous
level are combined into larger areas with more variable color, and
so on. As far as I know there is no such image representation in PSP.
You can't do real segmentation in PSP. In some sense, though,
Posterize and Decrease Color Depth perform a color based segmentation
by eliminating small color differences between pixels. (Unfortunately
"small" is defined mathematically, not perceptually). Edge Preserving
Smooth at high values (i.e. 30) is also useful because if maintains
edges where there are large differences in color and smoothes out
regions where the color variation is slight. (Repeat EPS for more of
an effect.) These methods can be used in combination.
In segmentation there is usually some kind of "garbage collection"
step where very small remaining remaining regions of colors very
different from anything else in the image are eliminated (or maybe
combined). I don't know that Buzz Pro does this but I would guess it
does. This amounts to elimination of specks, which can be done with
a range of filters. Despeckle, Erode, Dilate, Texture Preserving
Smooth are candidates. Median and Salt And Pepper are also
candidates. Both are capable of removing larger specks than the
former set of filters but Salt And Pepper offers the most flexibility.
It doesn't produce the blocky effect of Erode and Dilate and it
doesn't divide the image into as distinct bands of color as does
the Median filter.
Note that this step of eliminating unrepresentative colors is quite
distinct from the previous step (paragraph before last) of taking
similar colors and replacing them somehow with a single color.
With the relatively limited set of faking options in PSP I doubt
you will achieve the sophisticated image segmentation of Buzz Pro.
However, using some of my suggestions in combination (perhaps also
coupled with adding a canvas texture) might produce a visually quite
pleasing result with some of the characteristics of what you get
with Buzz Pro. It will need a lot of trial and error fiddling
though.
| |
| \(Mr.\) Adriaan Barel 2006-05-27, 7:10 am |
|
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:4477408D.27F7116D@agabatur.xednaps
> Tom wrote:
>
> I don't have Buzz Pro but one time I looked into this. I believe
> Buzz Pro is based on a patented hierarchical segmentation using
> rank order filters. This is going to make reproducing the effect in
> PSP rather tricky.
>
> Rank order filters are those that somehow sort the values of pixels
> in the filter window (as opposed to doing arithmetic with them or
> changing them based on some condition being met). The only rank order
> filters I am sure exist in PSP are the Median, Erode and Dilate
> filters. Median chooses a pixel value from a sorted set such that
> there are as many values less than the chosen one as there are values
> greater than it. Erode chooses the minimum value in a sorted set of
> pixels values. Dilate chooses the maximum value from a sorted set of
> pixels values. There might be other rank order filters in PSP
> disguised as something else but I don't know if that's the case.
>
> Segmentation means dividing the image up into areas which meet some
> uniformity criteria you've establish (and/or possibly other criteria
> too like size of area or number of areas). Uniformity means finding
> regions in which all the adjacent pixel colors resemble each other
> to a certain degree so that, for example, all the colors in the region
> could be replaced by a single representative color. You can't do real
> segmentation in PSP but you can fake it a little.
>
> Hierarchical means that there are various available levels of detail.
> At the highest LOD are the pixels. At the next level the pixels are
> combined into sets of very small regions of very uniform color. At
> the next LOD those sets are combined into somewhat larger regions
> with less uniform color. At the next LOD the sets from the previous
> level are combined into larger areas with more variable color, and
> so on. As far as I know there is no such image representation in PSP.
>
> You can't do real segmentation in PSP. In some sense, though,
> Posterize and Decrease Color Depth perform a color based segmentation
> by eliminating small color differences between pixels. (Unfortunately
> "small" is defined mathematically, not perceptually). Edge Preserving
> Smooth at high values (i.e. 30) is also useful because if maintains
> edges where there are large differences in color and smoothes out
> regions where the color variation is slight. (Repeat EPS for more of
> an effect.) These methods can be used in combination.
>
> In segmentation there is usually some kind of "garbage collection"
> step where very small remaining remaining regions of colors very
> different from anything else in the image are eliminated (or maybe
> combined). I don't know that Buzz Pro does this but I would guess it
> does. This amounts to elimination of specks, which can be done with
> a range of filters. Despeckle, Erode, Dilate, Texture Preserving
> Smooth are candidates. Median and Salt And Pepper are also
> candidates. Both are capable of removing larger specks than the
> former set of filters but Salt And Pepper offers the most flexibility.
> It doesn't produce the blocky effect of Erode and Dilate and it
> doesn't divide the image into as distinct bands of color as does
> the Median filter.
>
> Note that this step of eliminating unrepresentative colors is quite
> distinct from the previous step (paragraph before last) of taking
> similar colors and replacing them somehow with a single color.
>
> With the relatively limited set of faking options in PSP I doubt
> you will achieve the sophisticated image segmentation of Buzz Pro.
> However, using some of my suggestions in combination (perhaps also
> coupled with adding a canvas texture) might produce a visually quite
> pleasing result with some of the characteristics of what you get
> with Buzz Pro. It will need a lot of trial and error fiddling
> though.
Too much information!
--
----oooOOOooo----
Adriaan Barel
| |
| \(Mr.\) Adriaan Barel 2006-05-27, 7:10 am |
|
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:4477408D.27F7116D@agabatur.xednaps
> Tom wrote:
>
> I don't have Buzz Pro but one time I looked into this.
[Snip]
Too much information! :-(
----oooOOOooo----
Adriaan Barel
| |
| Joëlle 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" <apbarel@REMOVEbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:44783333_1@cnews...
>
> "Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
> news:4477408D.27F7116D@agabatur.xednaps
> [Snip]
>
>
> Too much information! :-(
>
>
> ----oooOOOooo----
>
> Adriaan Barel
>
>
Buzz Pro is expensive, but also gives wonderful results.
You can Google for all sorts of tutorials, starting here:
http://www.psplinks.com/
The only way to do a 'Buzz Pro' with PSP is to experiment and write
everything down.
It happens all the time, you play with settings, like the effect, but don't
remember how you got there.
Also, if you hit F3 you will get the History of all your twiddling. There
will be lots of crossed out things. ignore those, just highlight the rest,
righ-click and save to a script. You can always delete it again.
For me, writing things down makes me remember what the various filters do.
Have a go, it's great fun.
:-)
Joëlle
| |
| \(Mr.\) Adriaan Barel 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"Joëlle" <funfunfun@anytime.now> wrote in message
news:4478391e$1_2@cnews
> "(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" <apbarel@REMOVEbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:44783333_1@cnews...
>
> Buzz Pro is expensive, but also gives wonderful results.
> You can Google for all sorts of tutorials, starting here:
> http://www.psplinks.com/
>
> The only way to do a 'Buzz Pro' with PSP is to experiment and write
> everything down.
> It happens all the time, you play with settings, like the effect, but
> don't remember how you got there.
> Also, if you hit F3 you will get the History of all your twiddling.
> There will be lots of crossed out things. ignore those, just
> highlight the rest, righ-click and save to a script. You can always
> delete it again. For me, writing things down makes me remember what the
> various
> filters do. Have a go, it's great fun.
> :-)
> Joëlle
Thanks Joelle, I never knew about the "F3" key.
----oooOOOooo----
Adriaan Barel
| |
|
|
Tom wrote:
> Joske wrote [snipped for brevity]
[color=darkred]
> Joske-- thanks for your timely response. Have tried the three
> procedures you demonstrated in the email below on a couple of my
> photos, and see how they can work. I plan to experiment further
> as well as to download another trial version of Buzz Pro (after
> our exchange I realized I had an older, outdated trial version on
> PSP9). I have been following your comments in the various emails
> (e.g., "Some comments on the paint posts" of May 23) and
> downloaded a couple of scripts from your website at
> http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/gif-index.html as well as
> enjoyed your sensitive cat photos (I also am a cat lover).
> Thanks again.
Tom, Spandex meanwhile explained why we will never come very close
to the effect in PSP. Good to know for sure, and at the same time a
shame, isn't it. As I've never seen anyone else here post work done
in Buzz Pro, I hope your newer trial version will allow you to post
some.
Thank you for taking a look around on my site. What a weird bunch of
cats, aren't they. If you have photos of yours (past or present), I
would look definitely look if you posted them in the photography
group. And no, you wouldn't get comments on the technical or arty
aspects from me... I know how hard it is to capture them and I think
any photo with a cat in it is fine :-)
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
http://www.daveamason.com/april/mp3...PlumFairy%2Emp3
| |
|
|
Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> Tom wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I don't have Buzz Pro but one time I looked into this. I believe
> Buzz Pro is based on a patented hierarchical segmentation using
> rank order filters. This is going to make reproducing the effect
> in PSP rather tricky.
> Rank order filters
> Segmentation
> Hierarchical
> You can't do real segmentation in PSP.
[snips just for brevity]
What interesting knowledge. It's new but fairly understandable and
insightful to me, and I've saved this message. So the filter does
use rather unique (patented) techniques... that is what I suspected.
Your PSP steps and suggestions produce pleasing results, but you
have explained the extra smoothness, what I call a dreamlike
transparency (wrong word, I know, lucidity maybe) that BP can give.
If this is patented, and I take it that's the method using LOD's, I
wonder if it means no other graphic software can do this.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
http://www.daveamason.com/april/mp3...PlumFairy%2Emp3
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" wrote:
> Too much information!
Don't read things you don't want to learn.
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
Joske wrote:
> If this is patented, and I take it that's the method using LOD's, I
> wonder if it means no other graphic software can do this.
I can't remember the patent details of course. I can't even remember
the inventor's name. It was some professor in the UK I think. However,
level of detail representations are pretty standard in image editing.
Wavelet compression as in JPEG 2000 uses an LOD approach for instance.
Fractals do too by the definition of self-similarity across scales.
I think the clever part of Buzz Pro is deciding on which pixels to
group in sets at each level of detail. Making segmented regions match
the areas of physical objects in the scene and creating something
that "looks right" when judged by a human is the hard bit. I think
that's the contribution of the rank order filters to the process.
However, there are many, many different methods of segmenting images.
The latest versions of MPEG use a visually effective form of
segmentation for example. I don't see why someone couldn't create
something very similar to Buzz Pro but achieved using different means
if he or she were minded to so do. Being able to do this would be
useful for many other purposes too.
| |
| \(Mr.\) Adriaan Barel 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:44787F5A.54324FF5@agabatur.xednaps
> "(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" wrote:
>
>
> Don't read things you don't want to learn.
You missed the point. We are bombarded with information all day and can only
take in so much. I just don't have that much time and I doubt anybody else
does in this case.
"This is a newsgroup. You can't control the behavior of other posters.
I'm afraid the only way to avoid receiving opinions from others,
whether you asked for them or not, is not to post anything. If you
put something out in front of the public expect everything from
vigorous applause to spirited heckling. This is the magic nature of
newsgroups. Be thankful that the participants here are polite, well
intentioned and knowledgeable, and not the abusive collection of
ill-informed and brainless sociopaths found in the real world. Be
grateful the Corel groups aren't moderated by Jerry Springer."
----oooOOOooo----
Adriaan Barel
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" wrote:
>
> "Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
> news:44787F5A.54324FF5@agabatur.xednaps
>
> You missed the point.
I don't think so. I got the point that you don't want to understand
the gory details of image manipulation and that, in your opinion,
nobody else does either and that consequently everything should be
presented in brief pre-digested sound bites with very little content.
I don't feel like doing that.
| |
| AuntySpam 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
Ahh, but if we could only come to understand this somehow.
--
AuntySpam (a.k.a. Norma), C-tech Volunteer
http://www.geocities.com/brewnetty/home.html
"(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" <apbarel@REMOVEbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:44783333_1@cnews...
>
> "Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
> news:4477408D.27F7116D@agabatur.xednaps
> [Snip]
>
>
> Too much information! :-(
>
>
> ----oooOOOooo----
>
> Adriaan Barel
>
>
| |
| \(Mr.\) Adriaan Barel 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:4478A32C.CFC73CDE@agabatur.xednaps
> "(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" wrote:
>
> I don't think so. I got the point that you don't want to understand
> the gory details of image manipulation and that, in your opinion,
> nobody else does either and that consequently everything should be
> presented in brief pre-digested sound bites with very little content.
> I don't feel like doing that.
You're right; I just want results and how to achieve them. If I wanted to
know how Paint Shop Pro. worked I'd do a university degree in programming or
do a course in software development.
----oooOOOooo----
Adriaan Barel
| |
|
|
Wow! F3. That's great and worth the price of admission :) Us beginners
appreciate such tidbits.
Tom
"Joëlle" <funfunfun@anytime.now> wrote in message news:4478391e$1_2@cnews...
>
>
> "(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" <apbarel@REMOVEbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:44783333_1@cnews...
>
> Buzz Pro is expensive, but also gives wonderful results.
> You can Google for all sorts of tutorials, starting here:
> http://www.psplinks.com/
>
> The only way to do a 'Buzz Pro' with PSP is to experiment and write
> everything down.
> It happens all the time, you play with settings, like the effect, but
> don't remember how you got there.
> Also, if you hit F3 you will get the History of all your twiddling. There
> will be lots of crossed out things. ignore those, just highlight the rest,
> righ-click and save to a script. You can always delete it again.
> For me, writing things down makes me remember what the various filters do.
> Have a go, it's great fun.
> :-)
> Joëlle
>
>
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" wrote:
> You're right; I just want results and how to achieve them. If I wanted to
> know how Paint Shop Pro. worked I'd do a university degree in programming or
> do a course in software development.
I don't know how PSP works either because the same as you I don't
work at Corel. However, I do know a little about image editing and
how one sees things. I find it helps me get better results from PSP.
I don't think a university course in programming or software
development would teach you anything at all about how to get good
results in any image editor. To use an analogy, you are confusing
learning a language with saying something interesting.
| |
| \(Mr.\) Adriaan Barel 2006-05-27, 7:08 pm |
|
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:4478D19E.EE3B6186@agabatur.xednaps
> "(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" wrote:
>
>
> I don't know how PSP works either because the same as you I don't
> work at Corel. However, I do know a little about image editing and
> how one sees things. I find it helps me get better results from PSP.
> I don't think a university course in programming or software
> development would teach you anything at all about how to get good
> results in any image editor. To use an analogy, you are confusing
> learning a language with saying something interesting.
My mention of a degree was only an analogy too. A person who drives a car
doesn't necessarily want to know how a gearbox works but I admit it would
help.
Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree.
Regards,
----oooOOOooo----
Adriaan Barel
| |
|
|
"Tom" <n.a.n.c.y@comcast.net> wrote in news:4478cbea$1_1@cnews:
>
> Wow! F3. That's great and worth the price of admission :) Us
> beginners appreciate such tidbits.
> Tom
F3 is just a keyboard shortcut to toggle the History palette. If
you aren't familiar with all of the palettes and toolbars available
in PSP, you can see what's available by going to View>Palettes (to
see a list of all of the available palettes) and View>Toolbars (to
see a list of all of the available toolbars). They can be toggled
on/off with their keyboard shortcuts or the menu.
Regards,
JoeB
[snipped]
| |
| Carrie Osmo 2006-05-27, 11:03 pm |
|
sheeeeeeesh
I haven't even mastered English :((
No hope her for sure!!! LOL
Thanks though for all the info - I found it
understandable in a "bit beyond me" sort
of way and gould think I got the gist -
or at leat realise why I couldn't..
SO I will upgrade vp5 at 30 bucks but not worry
about buzz-pro at this stage .. though some of the
results seem impressive to my eye.
carrie
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message news:4478D19E.EE3B6186@agabatur.xednaps...
>
> "(Mr.) Adriaan Barel" wrote:
>
>
> I don't know how PSP works either because the same as you I don't
> work at Corel. However, I do know a little about image editing and
> how one sees things. I find it helps me get better results from PSP.
> I don't think a university course in programming or software
> development would teach you anything at all about how to get good
> results in any image editor. To use an analogy, you are confusing
> learning a language with saying something interesting.
>
| |
| Nightingail 2006-05-27, 11:03 pm |
|
(Mr.) Adriaan Barel wrote:
> You missed the point. We are bombarded with information all day and
> can only take in so much. I just don't have that much time and I
> doubt anybody else does in this case.
Yo Adriaan, you really have no idea how others in this group feel about the
information that Spandex provides. I do have the time and can't think of any
better way to spend it than learning more about things that I'm interested
in. My opinion is that there's no such thing as 'too much information' when
it comes to the useful type of info that Spandex (as well as the many other
knowledgeable folks in the groups) share freely with the rest of us.
Gail
--
Nightingail's Gallery
www.nightingail.com
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-05-28, 3:57 am |
|
Nightingail wrote:
> My opinion is that there's no such thing as 'too much information' when
> it comes to the useful type of info that Spandex (as well as the many other
> knowledgeable folks in the groups) share freely with the rest of us.
Please be careful. When I blush it melts the waxy coating on my
'baga self.
| |
|
|
Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> Joske wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I think the clever part of Buzz Pro is deciding on which pixels to
> group in sets at each level of detail. Making segmented regions
> match the areas of physical objects in the scene and creating
> something that "looks right" when judged by a human is the hard
> bit.
That is what it does well indeed. Usually you'll either see leftover
non-matching-color edges or objects becoming unrecognizable. Most
filters seem to have no choice but to either leave edges untouched
or spread object areas too widely (if I'm saying this correctly in
my amateur understanding). BP (Simplify) creates something wholly
new from a graphic that yet leaves the scene intact.
> I think that's the contribution of the rank order filters to
> the process. However, there are many, many different methods of
> segmenting images. The latest versions of MPEG use a visually
> effective form of segmentation for example. I don't see why
> someone couldn't create something very similar to Buzz Pro but
> achieved using different means if he or she were minded to so do.
> Being able to do this would be useful for many other purposes too.
I'm not sure which purposes you're thinking of. But I take it the
patent is not stopping others to develop similar superb filters
then.
Joske
(and no, I'm not holding out hopes in this for the program I'm
using)
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|