Talk:Bump map: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TomEdwards (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Removed obsolete comments now that the page has been split up.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think the GIMP tool is more powerful: it has more settings (especially better filters with edge detection). --[[User:Vaarscha|Vaarscha]] 04:26, 9 Mar 2006 (PST) | |||
In general, just applying the nvidia filters to a texture isn't going to produce good results. I think this article needs an update | In general, just applying the nvidia filters to a texture isn't going to produce good results. I think this article needs an update that includes more advanced methods, similar to the content of the article here: http://members.shaw.ca/jimht03/normal.html | ||
The [http://www.crazybump.com/beta/download.html crazy bump beta test] produces some very good normal maps. Some of them can be argued as almost having the same depth as a parallax map. --Unknown | |||
Revision as of 11:10, 27 August 2007
I think the GIMP tool is more powerful: it has more settings (especially better filters with edge detection). --Vaarscha 04:26, 9 Mar 2006 (PST)
In general, just applying the nvidia filters to a texture isn't going to produce good results. I think this article needs an update that includes more advanced methods, similar to the content of the article here: http://members.shaw.ca/jimht03/normal.html
The crazy bump beta test produces some very good normal maps. Some of them can be argued as almost having the same depth as a parallax map. --Unknown