Am 5/23/2016 um 13:37 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> No, no! That is not what I said! As I understand the whole thing here,
> the straightforward/correct way to do things does not get me the results
> I want (and I do not see how I can obtain that otherwise) so I turn to
> unconventional ways to reach my goal. Personally, I think that is an
> acceptable artistic way to do things.
>
OK. While I still do not understand why the word "artistic" does popup 
within a context I consider a purely technical problem (it almost seems 
like a curse in these NG, as soon as someone mentions "gamma" inevitable 
someone else replies "but for artistic reasons" as if one would have 
anything to do with the other as I have tried to explain with the ironic 
Vermeer example).
Anyway, I simply do not believe you have used the 
"straightforward/correct" way. So step by step: you are using a linear 
gradient to generate the depth-map image within POV-Ray. Right? Then you 
make sure that POV-Ray writes the depth-map image in linear color space 
by using the appropriate file output options (or, much easier use 
OpenEXR as output file format). Right? Then, when using the image again 
in POV-Ray you add gamma 1.0 to the image_map statement. Right? And in 
case you really need to edit the depth-map outside of POV-Ray you make 
sure that the used editor does not apply gamma correction when opening 
or saving the image file (hint: AFAIK this is not possible with Gimp, 
but can be done e.g. with Photoshop). Right?
Anything else will give you an distorted result and/or a loss of quickly 
estimated 85% of detail information.

> I, modern Vermeer, do not paint the earring but glue the photograph of
> one in its place (collage) :-)
>
This *is* called artistic nowadays I guess, but this is certainly not my 
field of expertise.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message