Am 28.03.2010 11:28, schrieb Ive:

> Makes a good reading. And I do not agree with the reordering suggestions
> but hey, it is a wiki article and everyone who wants to improve it can
> do so.

Yes. Well, at least as soon as the page moves from my own personal space 
to some more official location.

> What I do miss for the "Why should I care" section is the mentioning of
> all the include files that are shipped with POV-Ray and have color
> definitions within them (colors.inc, woods.inc, metals.inc ... ). All of
> them do use gamma pre-corrected color definitions and are pretty useless
> for 3.7 as they are now.

That's a good point.

However, I think the proper approach for those would be to fix them by 
virtue of an "#if (version >= 3.7)" statement (or, maybe even better 
yet, pre-definition of macros as suggested by the article).

(I think the materials need rework anyway, to allow for better 
interoperability with radiosity.)

Still, yes, even then the article should possibly mention the topic of 
legacy scenes in general.


> And the headline "Why Does POV-Ray Not Do It The Photoshop Way?" does
> mostly show that you do not have a good idea of what (contemporary
> versions) of P'shop are doing as most operations there are internally
> done in linear color space and it is also fairly easy to setup the
> P'shop color picker to show linear color values and not perceptual ones.

With "The Photoshop Way" I intended to refer to what you get when you 
use the color picking tool of image editing software in general (taking 
Photoshop just as a popular example) - with gamma pre-corrected values 
probably still being the default (I still have an older value of 
Photoshop, so I might be wrong there). And as the internals are hidden 
from the casual user anyway, I don't think many users would associate 
that title with those inner workings.

Post a reply to this message