 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb Kenneth:
> Over and above all this, my own eyes (and CRT monitor) tell me that there's
> something not-quite-right about the *greens* in both images; they look a bit
> 'olive'-colored to me. That's just a subjective assessment, of course, but I
> wonder if anyone else sees it that way?
Maybe it is due to the colour space being clipped to sRGB in the output
image?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/23/2015 5:34 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2009 November 10, you posted scene file munsell_color_solid_cie.pov to
> p.b.s-f. That scene renders what I expect are the correct color intensities,
> notwithstanding the unrealistically high ambient value.
>
>
>
The older scene also looks washed-out to me when rendered in 3.7. I
don't have 3.6 installed at the moment.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/23/2015 3:00 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 5:34 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> On 2009 November 10, you posted scene file munsell_color_solid_cie.pov to
>> p.b.s-f. That scene renders what I expect are the correct color
>> intensities,
>> notwithstanding the unrealistically high ambient value.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The older scene also looks washed-out to me when rendered in 3.7. I
> don't have 3.6 installed at the moment.
>
>
> Mike
Okay, I just re-rendered the scene specifying #version 3.6 instead of
#version 3.7. There is a huge difference! I cannot explain it however. I
don't know why there is such a big difference.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.11.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> Okay, I just re-rendered the scene specifying #version 3.6 instead of
> #version 3.7. There is a huge difference! I cannot explain it however. I
> don't know why there is such a big difference.
Specifying "#version 3.6" will put POV-Ray in backward compatibility
mode; among other thins, this will re-activating the "ambient" mechanism
even when radiosity is used, which might explain the difference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/23/2015 4:10 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.11.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>
>> Okay, I just re-rendered the scene specifying #version 3.6 instead of
>> #version 3.7. There is a huge difference! I cannot explain it however. I
>> don't know why there is such a big difference.
>
> Specifying "#version 3.6" will put POV-Ray in backward compatibility
> mode; among other thins, this will re-activating the "ambient" mechanism
> even when radiosity is used, which might explain the difference.
>
So, radiosity automatically turns ambient off in 3.7?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> The original image looks a bit washed out to me, too (although I don't have a
> true Munsell color wheel to look at.) I have an idea about why that might be so
> (and about why the new 3.7 render looks more saturated, but *possibly* still
> incorrect) Just a guess: I assume the original render was done in v3.6xx. *If*
> it was rendered with an assumed-Gamma of 1.0 instead of 2.2, then the color
> values you chose to use may have been 'gamma-lightened' incorrectly there;
> whereas the newer render in 3.7, although set up correctly in the SDL with
> #version 3.7 and assumed-gamma 1.0, may itself be doing some gamma-fudging
> because of the original color values that were used. Hmm, sounds complicated!
> ;-)
What confuses me is that when I render munsell_1929.pov directly (after making
the correction from cam_view to Muns_cam_view), the result is much more
saturated than the pre-rendered illustration. I don't see how the pre-rendered
illustration could have come from that scene as published.
File munsell_1929.pov is also missing a #version directive; when I use POV-Ray
3.6.1 or use POV-Ray 3.7 with Version=3.6 on the command line, the colors are
like those of munsell_color_solid_cie.pov that I mentioned above (which, in
retrospect, I probably ran as 3.6). Without the directive, POV-Ray 3.7 shuts
off the ambient, and the colors become very dark. Perhaps boosting the diffuse
to 1.0 would lead to desirable results in 3.7. As for clipka's suggestions, I
would keep the radiosity and use gray_threshold 1. I haven't done any test
renders yet, though.
To Mike: If you wish to keep the module compatible to 3.6, you obviously cannot
use emission. If you want the objects to glow and be compatible with both 3.6
and 3.7, while keeping radiosity, you must put #version 3.6; at the head of the
file, and stick with the high ambient. If you don't care about 3.6
compatibility, then use emission instead of ambient, and definitely put #version
3.7 at the head of the file. However, with a higher diffuse value (which I
recommend), you will have less need for emission.
> Over and above all this, my own eyes (and CRT monitor) tell me that there's
> something not-quite-right about the *greens* in both images; they look a bit
> 'olive'-colored to me. That's just a subjective assessment, of course, but I
> wonder if anyone else sees it that way?
When I try to render the data directly, the greens from G5 up look very cyan to
me. Munsell is supposed to visually space out the hues evenly, but the swath
from G5 to BP5 transitions very slowly to my eyes.
What weirds me out is that Munsell uses the very purplish illuminant C instead
of the normal D65 or D50. Whether it is used as the color system white point or
the reference white point I have been unable to find out. (That information is
probably available for purchase.) Worse, I have been unable to understand what
"reference white point" even means, which certainly hampers my understanding of
color.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 23.11.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>
> > Okay, I just re-rendered the scene specifying #version 3.6 instead of
> > #version 3.7. There is a huge difference! I cannot explain it however. I
> > don't know why there is such a big difference.
>
> Specifying "#version 3.6" will put POV-Ray in backward compatibility
> mode; among other thins, this will re-activating the "ambient" mechanism
> even when radiosity is used, which might explain the difference.
I tried it, and that is exactly the case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 4:10 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Am 23.11.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> >
> >> Okay, I just re-rendered the scene specifying #version 3.6 instead of
> >> #version 3.7. There is a huge difference! I cannot explain it however. I
> >> don't know why there is such a big difference.
> >
> > Specifying "#version 3.6" will put POV-Ray in backward compatibility
> > mode; among other thins, this will re-activating the "ambient" mechanism
> > even when radiosity is used, which might explain the difference.
> >
>
> So, radiosity automatically turns ambient off in 3.7?
Yes. This is one of the biggest differences between the two versions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Also, does this mean that Lightsys is out of date?
No, Lightsys is fine, except for one place in CIE_Skylight.inc that uses ambient
where emission would be appropriate in POV-Ray 3.7. The srgb keyword is
orthogonal to Lightsys.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/23/2015 5:12 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> To Mike: If you wish to keep the module compatible to 3.6, you obviously cannot
> use emission. If you want the objects to glow and be compatible with both 3.6
> and 3.7, while keeping radiosity, you must put #version 3.6; at the head of the
> file, and stick with the high ambient. If you don't care about 3.6
> compatibility, then use emission instead of ambient, and definitely put #version
> 3.7 at the head of the file. However, with a higher diffuse value (which I
> recommend), you will have less need for emission.
>
That helps, thanks!
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
