Molly, Load up a screen shot of the settings you are using on the script if it fails again. please

I just used the default settings

From your previous screen shot it definately looks like it has ran the script, maybe black isn't the best colour try using white. if that fails then I'm stumped.

Wow, now I am baffled, I have never heard of color making a difference while using a script. Thank you
he4rty and thank you Graechan for another of your wonderful scripts.

I'm glad that worked, I only suggested changing the colour as it bump maps the image to create light and shadow on the 3d effect and black stays black when bump mapped.

So what you are saying is to stay with the light colors. thank you again.

No, it just works better, I think if you look very closely at your screen shot you posted on page 2 bottom, it has actually worked just not showing up to well.

that looks absolutely great !

Thank you Esper, the script writer did the work but it is a really nice script.

I'm going to be the bastard that recommends Blender 3D for 3D text. No matter how good your scripts get, they aren't going to get you anywhere near the quality and flexibility of a 3D program. You can limp along with scripts in GIMP, but the results are going to be a bit ham-fisted for the most part. They are going to look like they came from a script rather than a camera. YMMV, however. To get the MOST mileage, gotta go Blender.

You are correct that Blender is an appropriate tool for creating true 3D objects. However, this is a GIMP forum and we support GIMP, so we don't just tell members to use Blender or some other software package. We attempt to explain how to use GIMP to its fullest extent.

Also, we can't assume photo-realism is the users' ultimate goal. It might, very well, not be.

I wasn't suggesting we just tell members to do... well anything, really. I was merely suggesting Blender for 3D text with a 3D effect, for the best results. Based on the comments on this thread, I think we can safely assume that realism falls high on the list of things people would like a 3D script to achieve. Also, use of Blender 3D and GIMP are not mutually exclusive. I use them together constantly, so it's not as much one vs the other, it's more a case of "how good are GIMP script results for 3D text" vs. what you want (and sometimes vs how much time it takes to do it). The results may be acceptable in some cases, but the fact is GIMP is not really set up to do it. I would (and have) suggested GIMP for certain things people have wanted to do in Blender, on Blender forums, for exactly the same reason. GIMP is set up to do things that Blender isn't. I suppose it's a bit like using a hammer to unscrew a bolt. You can probably do it, but the results are not going to be as good, and it might take a lot more work than just learning to use that screwdriver and socket-wrench.

Well, I understand your POV and to some extent, I agree with it. There are cases where users want to create scalable images, without losing quality. GIMP simply isn't the tool for that job and I would normally direct them toward a vector graphics application for that task.

My point was that this site it dedicated to GIMP and I personally wouldn't suggest to members that nice looking 3D text or 3D objects can't be created in GIMP, when that really isn't the case. While objects can't be described in 3 dimensions in GIMP, one can get very good results using the tools GIMP does have. As a matter of practice, I want to encourage members to push the limits of GIMP. I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but your post kinda came across as somewhat disparaging of GIMP and to the hard work the GIMP script writers put into their tools. I think, with a little effort, very good looking 3D can be achieved in GIMP and it doesn't have to be photo-realistic. I mean, I don't want the 3D text in the all the banners on GC to look like pictures. This might be a point where we agree to disagree, but that's OK.

We also don't want to get into the ins and outs of Blender here. That is better suited for the Blender forums. We want to maintain a narrow focus, geared toward the GIMP community. I'm a firm believer that for a forum to be successful, the focus should be narrow and should stay within its niche. We do have a section for "Other Graphics Applications" because the members wanted a catchall for discussions of graphics apps other than GIMP. Any discussions of (or art created with) any app other than GIMP gets placed there.

Yes, and this was my point exactly regarding realistic text effects. This thread contained some critique of the results from various filters... but that's okay, right? I'm not trying to disparage the work that goes into scripts, or GIMP or any of that. My specialty is making things look real in GIMP, and other Open Source programs. That's pretty much what all my input amounts to. Following that, I had to suggest it. I just had to. ^.^

I didn't post this advice for people who want to do it in GIMP, I posted it for those who are trying to get realistic results. It was a suggestion to look further elsewhere, not a demand that everyone stop experimenting and writing scripts for GIMP. Quite the contrary. What I hope happens is that someone writes a piece of middleware that links Blender's ray tracer to accept input from a script in GIMP. This way you could have both, and not sacrifice any quality. Comments can lead to all sorts of unconsidered solutions. I had to be the bad guy here and say "try it with Blender". I knew I'd probably incur some ire, but hey, if it turns someone on to Blender as an Open Source companion to GIMP, there is no one I know that would regret it. I wasn't going to post a tutorial on this thread or anything. I certainly would have moved that to another thread, as you suggest.


I agree completely. I was only posting the suggestion for those concerned about the realism. There have been plenty of decent results so far. My fav so far is the Ubuntu stamp.


I completely agree. Incidentally, there's no reason you couldn't script a 3D transformation matrix into GIMP. It's mainly the ray tracing that's the problem.




You are quite right. That was not my intent.


On the contrary. I quite like the assortment of banners on the site. Very eclectic. There's something just awesome about home-grown graphics from a tight-knit community. Feels like home.



Yes, which is why I didn't try to post the ins and outs of Blender in the middle of this thread. Just a passing suggestion.




And that's where I might post a tutorial if people expressed interest. Doesn't hurt to suggest, right? I certainly wasn't going to press the issue.

This script doesn't work. Gimp is unable to locate it in the plug in browser.

mackenzieh:

Rod,

Where is this keep resize script/plugin you refer to? I dont seem to have it.

Thanks Mahvin. I remember it now. It's just confusing because the file type is scm while the plugin itself is under script fu which made me think that it was a py file.

I attached it here Mahvin. Something Rob A fixed up for me a while back.
Menu Location is Script-Fu/Step Resize Keeping Layers


Have fun with it.

Here is how i use it
1) i create a text layer
2) i fill with pat or gradient or color
3) layer to image size (if you do not resize layer you get different results)
4) run filter
5) SETTINGS
If i use a text layer say 750 pixels wide i will set the target side to width and target value to 800 and steps to 50.
This adds 1 new layer per 1 pixel behind the starting text.




This is with the steps value set to 50/2 OR 25 steps. You get more realistic results for 3D effects.


Play with the different settings and see what you can come up with. It is an interesting filter but you can not control exact direction of the 3D extrusion.

With a pattern at 25 steps

Here is NO-RESIZE results with 25 steps (same image size)



So you see you can get some way different results without doing a layer to image size first.