litephiter wrote:
I probably could estimate the size of the medallion, but I’m not sure it would be worth the price. To me, it’s pretty amazing that this thing is as complete as it already is.
You’re probably right. However, if you have access to a regular 3D printer, you could print two halves of a hollow one in plastic, then stick a lead or steel weight inside to make it heavy enough. It might be small enough I could print it on my printer (no heated bed (yet) so larger items warp pretty badly).
Or, you could make a silicone mold from a printed part, then cast it directly in lead (and paint it) or lead-free pewter. Still more than you probably want to spend, though.
Nice new profile pic, by the way!
Thanks! I couldn’t have done it without your (nice, in-focus) photo. It’s more impressive at full resolution (I’m lookin’ at you, KR155E ;-))
thunderstruck wrote:
RunnerPack wrote:
thunderstruck wrote:
Ahh, yeah, I do that in photoshop all of the time. I think that’s the better way then trying to convince the converter to do it.
Yeah, much better… apart from the whole “not seeing the effect on the resulting image without reloading” thing
It’s your project, so you don’t need to add a feature if you don’t want to, but don’t try to justify it by saying that using an external program is “better”.
I don’t see where I justify anything. I just said that I think doing these things in photoshop works better.
I might interpret your post wrong but you sound rude and snotty. I have no problem with feedback but comments like this are a great way to ruin my day.
I wasn’t trying to be rude, I was just stating a fact. It’s demonstrably not better manipulating the depth map in an external program, especially with the current state of Vb3dConverter requiring you to close it before you can save your changes, open it again, reload the two files, set all the settings the way they were, then, if it still isn’t right, doing the whole thing over again. I also know that the program was just a means to an end, and it obviously served your needs at the time, so it’s a total success, in my book.
I’m also, obviously, not trying to tell you what to do in your own software. I’m just saying how the program could be improved.
Besides, I know you’re too good a developer – and just generally far too intelligent – to have your day ruined by being told your program isn’t perfect…
Still friends? 
thunderstruck wrote:
Ahh, yeah, I do that in photoshop all of the time. I think that’s the better way then trying to convince the converter to do it.
Yeah, much better… apart from the whole “not seeing the effect on the resulting image without reloading” thing 
It’s your project, so you don’t need to add a feature if you don’t want to, but don’t try to justify it by saying that using an external program is “better”. By definition, “the best” would be for the tool to contain every aspect of creating both the image and depth map, with a real-time preview.
My point is: although making a clone of Photoshop just for making VB images would be complete overkill, the usefulness of some features might just outweigh the difficulty of implementing them. I think this is one of those features, but if you don’t, just say “I don’t feel like doing that” and we’ll leave it at that.
Like I said, it’s a very useful tool as it is, and the other fixes I mentioned would make it indispensable.
thunderstruck wrote:
I don’t fully get Point 4.
Maybe the attached screen-shot of the PaintShop Pro Levels tool helps explain it.
Attachments:
Glad we could help 
Reel Big Fish wrote:
(many adapters out there are 10 V, which will work but may shorten the life of your unit).
Well, since the VB’s on-board regulator is rated to 13V – and probably a little conservatively, at that, since it’s the more efficient “buck” (switching) type – I don’t think anyone should worry about using a 10V adapter (especially since that’s what Nintendo themselves designed the U.S. tap to use :-P)