Jerry Anning wrote in message <36e98f24.23757454@news.povray.org>...
>On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 06:44:16 +1030, PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
>
>>I'm pretty sure that reasonable post processing is allowed in the IRTC.
>>I recall reading that processing which affects all pixels similarly is
>>acceptable, ie. 'if you wouldn't be willing to do it to every frame of
>>an animation, it's probably not acceptable' so I'd just load the image
>>into a paint program and grey scale it.
>
>Not so, I'm afraid.  That would definitely be illegal postprocessing.
>The intent of the rule and the somewhat poor example you quote has
>been clarified in irtc-l.  The desired situation is no postprocessing
>at all.  About the only things generally considered acceptable
>postprocessing are: adding copyright/sig, jpeg conversion. resizing,
>gamma/brightness correction, (this causes some controversy) stitching
>together an image rendered in pieces and (this is even more
>controversial) cropping in certain circumstances.  Many people go to
>great extremes to avoid even these things where possible.
>
>Jerry Anning
>clem "at" dhol "dot" com

While I haven't had a go at IRTC (yet), I have read the rules. It seems to
me that it is quite acceptable to use a graphics program to convert an image
from one "file format" to another, for axample, TGA to JPG, for posting. How
is it different if I open my 16-bit grayscale image and save it as a 24-bit
jpeg? The program recognises that the image is gray, not colour and behaves
appropriately.

Comments?

Gordon
<gbe### [at] birdcameroncomau>

Post a reply to this message