|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello people.
I understand 3.7beta > 10 has now gamma-enabled by default, at 2.2 if I
understand correctly.
I have this scenario: A simple box, with an image_map projected from a
PNG image (which, I understand, defines it's proper gamma). I declared a
finish (ambient 1), and I don't use any light source (I wanted to have a
garanteed uniform lighting).
The rendered image is way too light. I can only return to normal results
if I disable gamma, by defining assumed_gamma 2.2).
What am I doing wrong here? Shouldn't the process be transparent in this
case?
John.
(This is 3.7beta34, compiled on linux)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John Coppens <joh### [at] johncoppenscom> wrote:
> I have this scenario: A simple box, with an image_map projected from a
> PNG image (which, I understand, defines it's proper gamma). I declared a
> finish (ambient 1), and I don't use any light source (I wanted to have a
> garanteed uniform lighting).
> The rendered image is way too light.
You have to specify the assumed gamma for the image used in the image_map.
This feature has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented in a
future beta. (It may even be possible to specify a default assumed gamma
for all input images.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> John Coppens <joh### [at] johncoppenscom> wrote:
>> I have this scenario: A simple box, with an image_map projected from a
>> PNG image (which, I understand, defines it's proper gamma). I declared a
>> finish (ambient 1), and I don't use any light source (I wanted to have a
>> garanteed uniform lighting).
>
>> The rendered image is way too light.
>
> You have to specify the assumed gamma for the image used in the image_map.
>
> This feature has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented in a
> future beta. (It may even be possible to specify a default assumed gamma
> for all input images.)
>
Speaking of future beta, the current one has expired 7 weeks ago. Is
there any estimate for beta 35 release?
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2009 11:34:20 -0500
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> You have to specify the assumed gamma for the image used in the
> image_map.
Just asking - isn't the gamma for PNG images defined in the image?
> This feature has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented in a
> future beta.
Ok, so I'm suspecting to be correct in disabling gamma correction then -
as the image is the only object I'm interested in (at the moment) is the
image_map, I have now a 1:1 from input to output.
Thanks!
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John Coppens <joh### [at] johncoppenscom> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2009 11:34:20 -0500
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > You have to specify the assumed gamma for the image used in the
> > image_map.
> Just asking - isn't the gamma for PNG images defined in the image?
POV-Ray 3.7 is not yet taking into account the input PNG gamma info
properly, IIRC.
> > This feature has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented in a
> > future beta.
> Ok, so I'm suspecting to be correct in disabling gamma correction then -
> as the image is the only object I'm interested in (at the moment) is the
> image_map, I have now a 1:1 from input to output.
You could also use #version 3.6 to make it use the same settings as
POV-Ray 3.6. That will most probably work on the final version of 3.7
as well.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |