On 02.12.2010 12:21, Stephen Klebs wrote:
>
> I did not intend to raise such a hornet's nest here (maybe I did).

Well, your first post does sound like carping to me and nothing more. 
You are aware that you are using a BETA where things like 
backwards-compatibility-mode might very well be broken but you are even 
aware of a workaround (adding gamma 2.2 to your color definitions) but 
you cry out load "what a pain!". Sorry, but with the help of Ctrl+V I 
really do not see the pain.
And you are not able to render a scene file from 1996 with the beta. 
Well this is really bad and you claim that this has to do with the 
changed gamma handling (while this can in fact easily be fixed). But it 
has mostly to do with the used noise-generator within global_settings 
where indeed something seems not to work as expected. But investigating 
on this and making a proper bug-report seems not to be your interest anyway.
And BTW rendering this scene with POV-Ray 3.62 works perfectly fine and 
takes less than a minute on my machine. So I fail to see the need for 
multiprocessor power here.
So yes, sounds just like carping to me.


> Those in the light lab and those in the art studio.
> The difference to me is that one is trying to reproduce the behavior of light as
> faithfully as possible, the other is trying to re-create an expressive picture
> of things so that this physical input can be transformed as experienced by the
> human eye.
>
I for one completely fail to see the two fractions you are talking 
about. You always seem to imply (and you did it again within your last 
response to Christoph) that there is this "light lab" fraction that is 
completely happy when they manage to render a photo-realistic image 
showing a glass of vine and then the "art studio" people trying to 
create expressive pictures that evoke emotions.

Have you actually looked at pictures created by Christoph and Jaime for 
example? And myself? Well, I'm not satisfied with just creating real 
looking images, even this "real" is not real important to me. I know 
that I do aim for more but I also know that I do quite frequently fail 
in achieving my goals. But I'm not failing because I'm part of a "light 
lab" fraction, I'm simply failing as an artist.

And BTW have you ever considered that a great deal of well known artists 
are also known for their interest in the laws of nature?


> All these complaints, of course, are completely unfair to those in the light lab
> trying to compute the refraction of photons off a wine glass or the scattering
> of the setting sun through a cloud.

Aah, well, we "light lab" people are completely happy when we manage it 
to create an absolute photo-realistic chrome sphere hovering above a 
checkered plane. Yes.


> We seem to be seeing opposite sides of the
> picture. One side assumes that by just reproducing how light is projected from
> objects onto the screen that that is enough, since past that point the eye is a
> mere recording device.

Says who? I would never say that. Seems more like you need this claim 
for your famous "two-fractions-theory".


> The other that that display is just a pattern of points
> of color that has to be perceived, re-seen, if you will, by the human eye to
> give it coherence, meaning, and going further. artistic expression.

Well, agreed, but I would also say that this point is of absolute no 
relevance within this discussion. This human "image-post-processing" and 
even this "giving it meaning" within my brain (or wherever) happens all 
the time anyway, everywhere. When I walk through the city, when I look 
outside the window when I'm in an art gallery and look at some painting 
or when I look at some CG image on my monitor.

I really do not think that there is anybody among us who thinks that 
human vision works like a camera lens and nothing more.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message