Talk:Bump map: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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 | 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 paralax map. | |||
Revision as of 05:14, 13 June 2007
Could I move the GIMP section over the Photoshop one or will the Photoshop-user go bananas then? ;) 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 paralax map.