On 23-5-2016 14:45, Ive wrote:
> 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).

In my view because creating an image is not just /only/ or /purely/ a 
technical problem. To get the end result I want I shall not hesitate to 
twist the rules. The technique is but a means to me towards an 
"artistic" goal. That may sound very extreme but I can assure you that I 
am very obedient towards the rules in general but I sometimes need to 
punch them in the face :-)

> 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?

I have done all that exactly to prescription (except I forgot about exr 
indeed) and initially have not edited the image, and still it does not 
give the result I want. My solution now would be to forget about most of 
the head and concentrate the output exclusively to the face. It would 
not matter as only the central part of the image is important for the 
final isosurface. I have not tried that thoroughly yet but I will.

> Anything else will give you an distorted result and/or a loss of quickly
> estimated 85% of detail information.

Agreed.

>
>> 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.

Nor mine really but the field is larger than what we may consider 
familiar or appropriate. The ready-mades of Surrealism can either be 
considered brilliant concepts or a hoax.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message