|
|
On 02/21/2018 06:47 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> In your "abyss media study" image, I'm curious about 1) vs. 3).
>
> When Gilles originally wrote the scene in v3.6.x (and posted an image, I
> assume), was he rendering it with assumed_gamma 1.0 then, or 2.2? (Those years
> were unclear times as far as gamma was concerned!) Your 1) image *appears* to
> show a gamma 2.2, yet the scene file itself (in my original 3.7.0 download)
> shows it as 1.0. If he did run it at 1.0, it would match you image 3) rather
> than 1)-- unless there was something really wonky about v3.6.x ! I'm wondering
> if his scene file may have gotten updated from 2.2 to 1.0 at some time in the
> past?
>
>
I have copies of POV-Ray source and distributions going back in time. I
have run-able POV-Ray versions back to v3.5 something (c ?).
What I did for the three v3.6.1 renders was use a version of the scene I
pulled from my copy of v3.6.1 rendering those with a corresponding
v3.6.1 compile. That version of the scene specified no gamma at all
meaning it ran at an assumed_gamma of 2.2.
v3.6.1 supports assumed_gamma 1.0, but the abyss scene (Gilles called
his 2001 version "The Field") is older - with a history going back into
the 1990s. Gilles created the abyss.pov version of "The Field"
especially for distribution with POV-Ray and I first see it in my older
code bases at v3.5.
See too: http://www.oyonale.com/3D.php?lang=en§ion=2001
(Oddly, a couple of the links off the abyss/The Field image page there
are not working for me today and they did a couple weeks back...)
Anyway, the scene was indeed modified by the time it was shipped with
v3.7.0 moving to 'assumed_gamma 1.0' and a changed camera definition -
and by side effect, I'd guess, a changed camera view - but nothing else.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|