 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.09.2011 13:45, schrieb Warp:
> POV-Ray 3.7 uses (now) a default assumed_gamma of 2.2, which perfectly
> explains that.
>
No, it doesn't. At least RC3 does not.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Am 11.09.2011 13:45, schrieb Warp:
>> POV-Ray 3.7 uses (now) a default assumed_gamma of 2.2, which
>> perfectly explains that.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. At least RC3 does not.
Just tested it, and that's only true if you explicitly set #version to
3.7, if not it uses 2.2.
Anyhow, using assumed_gamma 1.0 and srgb gives the correct result, the
same as when using assumed_gamma 2.2 and rgb. So, I think something is
wrong with Thomas setup... it should be giving him the correct results
for the right sRGB color on the image he posted, and the left color
should be also different (236,187,151).
Regards,
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.09.2011 16:28, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> Just tested it, and that's only true if you explicitly set #version to
> 3.7, if not it uses 2.2.
>
ah, well ;) I guess that's the reason I write #version 3.7 AND
global_settings {assumed_gamma 1.0} (just to be sure) automatic into
every new scene file before doing anything else.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Guys!
I am coming back tomorrow to see this more in detail!
Great stuff you are producing. Thanks a lot!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Am 11.09.2011 16:28, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
>> Just tested it, and that's only true if you explicitly set #version to
>> 3.7, if not it uses 2.2.
>>
>
> ah, well ;) I guess that's the reason I write #version 3.7 AND
> global_settings {assumed_gamma 1.0} (just to be sure) automatic into
> every new scene file before doing anything else.
>
> -Ive
>
Curiosly, I noticed that
#version 3.7;
global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}
background{rgb <213,127,79>/255}
gives a slighty different result than just:
background{rgb <213,127,79>/255}
The last gives back the correct <213,127,79>, while the former gives
<214,128,78>. ?!?!?
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So, I think something is wrong with Thomas setup... it should be
> giving him the correct results for the right sRGB color on the image
> he posted, and the left color should be also different
> (236,187,151).
>
And I can't seem to be able to reproduce his results just by mangling
with my gamma settings... looks like a bad gamma setup would not
de-saturate the colors in that way. I really can't figure out what's
wrong there...
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.09.2011 17:01, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
>> Am 11.09.2011 16:28, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
>>> Just tested it, and that's only true if you explicitly set #version to
>>> 3.7, if not it uses 2.2.
>>>
>>
>> ah, well ;) I guess that's the reason I write #version 3.7 AND
>> global_settings {assumed_gamma 1.0} (just to be sure) automatic into
>> every new scene file before doing anything else.
>>
>> -Ive
>>
>
> Curiosly, I noticed that
>
> #version 3.7;
> global_settings{assumed_gamma 2.2}
> background{rgb <213,127,79>/255}
>
> gives a slighty different result than just:
>
> background{rgb <213,127,79>/255}
>
> The last gives back the correct <213,127,79>, while the former gives
> <214,128,78>. ?!?!?
>
looks pretty much like the difference between a simple power 2.2 and the
sRGB gamma response curve (composed of two functions and just 'close' to
2.2) to me.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 11-9-2011 9:37, Warp wrote:
>
>> What are your gamma settings in POV-Ray?
>>
>> If you want the color<213, 127, 79>/255 to correspond to the on-screen
>> pixel value<213, 127, 79>, you'll have to use an assumed_gamma of 2.2
>> (which is the default).
>>
>
> Display_Gamma = sRGB
> global_settings {assumed_gamma 1.0}
>
> I understand from the documentation that this last one should always be
> kept at 1 "for maximum realism" which is what I want. Using 2.2 or srgb
> instead make the colors darker, but if the image is loaded in Gimp for
> example, the colors do not match up with the initial ones. Neither with
> assumed_gamma 1 I must add. So, fundamentally, something is changed in
> between...
>
> I give up. The matter is really going way beyond my understanding... :-(
>
> Thomas
You can use: pigment{srgb<213, 127, 79>/255}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-9-2011 13:15, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> background{rgb <213,127,79>/255}
I think that is where my setup is *wrong* (and I apologize) because I
use a colored object within a white sphere with finish {emission 1} (no
light source). I understand now from the explanations by Warp and Ive,
that the sphere's color influences the object's color. Obvious, but I am
not always thinking straight ;-)
Remains my question: when to use the term 'srgb' in POV-Ray code?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-9-2011 23:44, Alain wrote:
>
> You can use: pigment{srgb<213, 127, 79>/255}
Yes, but that gives a totally different color. As I asked elsewhere here
in answer to Jaime: I am unsure when you need to use the terms 'rgb'
(which seems to be almost always) or the term 'srgb'in POV-Ray code.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
