Talk:Bump map: Difference between revisions

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Signed the unsigned comments.)
(Removed link already inserted into the article. Moving the rest of the comment too.)
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)
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 that includes more advanced methods, similar to the content of the article here: http://members.shaw.ca/jimht03/normal.html --[[User:Moultano|Moultano]] 19:43, 20 Jul 2005 (PST)


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. --[[User:Amckern|Amckern]] 13:14, 13 Jun 2007 (PST)
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. --[[User:Amckern|Amckern]] 13:14, 13 Jun 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 11:54, 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)

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. --Amckern 13:14, 13 Jun 2007 (PST)

Retrieved from "https://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bump_map&oldid=54692"