This means that if you want to insert a photomontage (cutout) of an oriental rug in a room, it will appear underneath the chairs and tables, properly scaled and in perspective. This is because it operates on EPix (Extended Pixel) files that contain a depth map, a material map, and an RGB image. Piranesi's strength is that all tools can be aware of and react to depth as well as the geometrical orientation of surfaces in an image. but it is basically a flatland painting program, super-sophisticated that it is. I just checked out the SA 2 web site - and its a very exciting product that my artist friends would probably love (if they were on a Mac). Will it work with a series of images like in an animation? NRR is very popular but I tried it with a client and they didn't like it, they prefered the photorealistic look. How does Pirenesi compare to Studio Artist 2 ? Piranesi is much faster and easier and now that I've worked through the tutorials in the demo and tried a couple of images from ArchiCAD and Artlantis, I'll be putting my order in tomorrow! and then magic wand a material to create a selection mask, etc. You can actually do tricks with Photoshop and Archicad/Artlantis by creating one rendered image that is the same as the material view in Piranesi. but in Photoshop you do that with masking layers and scale by eye (obviously not as accurate). Impossible to be accurate with curvy stuff. pretty quick once you're adept, but only if the geometry is very rectilinear. A Piranesi filter can do this automatically, while every plane in Photoshop would require a separately skewed image to be masked and mapped.įor texture orientation in Photoshop, one simply free-transforms and skews. The Photoshop (and other software) 'artsy' filters don't know anything about geometry, and so just fill areas without any concept of the orientation of planes and their depths. Can't do this realistically even with tricks in Photoshop. In fact, I'm going to disagree with myself now!ģ) the ability to have brush strokes (pencil lines/etc) take (1) and (2) into account in order to mimick the way we draw or paint by hand. but that is part of what I mean about Piranesi being faster. There are 2 things that I like about piranesi that are missing from Photoshop:ġ) Depth-enable inserting people/car/tree w/ auto-scale easily & whatever infront will block those behind them.Ģ) Surface orientation-textures will orient itself to the surface. There's nothing I've seen in Piranesi that I can't do in Photoshop with more control.however, Piranesi seems way faster and fun. More later when I finish the tutorials and try to get one of my own images in from ArchiCAD/Artlantis. There's nothing I've seen in Piranesi that I can't do in Photoshop with more control.however, Piranesi seems way faster and fun.Ĭompared to Photoshop, I thought Piranesi was easy.way fewer options, checkboxes, etc. Like any tool, it is the talent of the operator and not the software that will result in a good image. Their gallery images do not impress me much, but halfway-through the tutorials and leaning towards a purchase, the program does. Fixed by assigning it to one processor: start Piranesi demo, ctrl-alt-del, in the Process tab, find Piranesi.exe and right mouse it, choose 'Set Affinity." and pick a processor. Hey, Robert! I've been doing the same thing and was going to send you the demo CD when I was finished with it!Ī note for the Piranesi 3 demo CD that I got from Informatix today: if you are on a dual processor system, or a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading enabled (looks like dual to the system), the demo seems to crash frequently. Dozens of settings, check boxes, etc.Īny one feel strongly one way or the other.is it worth the time to learn? Pro: The gallery shows what can be done, some very passable stuff.Ĭon: This is not a easy program to use. I'm working my way through the Piranesi tutorials with the demo version.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |