 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> How about changing the default output file type for both Windows and
> Unix version to PNG?
yes please
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How about changing the default output file type for both Windows and
> Unix version to PNG?
I totaly agree. In fact, it could be the default for all versions.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, I vote no. Sorry to be the one nay-sayer here. Given the past problems of
different applications not reading the embedded gamma of .png images correctly,
is this a good idea? Or am I missing something that I should know about?
Is this idea based purely on image quality (.png vs. .jpeg, for example)?
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.04.2010 22:08, schrieb Kenneth:
> Hmm, I vote no. Sorry to be the one nay-sayer here. Given the past problems of
> different applications not reading the embedded gamma of .png images correctly,
> is this a good idea? Or am I missing something that I should know about?
>
> Is this idea based purely on image quality (.png vs. .jpeg, for example)?
The idea is basically to adapt the output file defaults to the changes
of time. Question is of course, what criteria should the default format
fulfil?
I think the paramount critera should be that (a) the files can be easily
exchanged between applications as well as via the internet, and (b) the
file format does not use lossy compression.
In my opinion that pretty much leaves us with PNG as the only choice.
As for gamma, note that gamma issues also exist with any other image
format (except for Radiance HDR and OpenEXR, but those are not
widespread enough to qualify as a default output format); the only
difference is that the PNG file format /promises/ proper gamma handling
but /some/ software fails to comply, while most other file formats don't
even give the promise in the first place.
For a user adhering to best practices, /at worst/ PNG will still be just
as good as any other formats.
Of course there may be reasons for a user to deviate from best
practices; in that case, they can choose their own default output file
format by placing "Output_File_Format=Whatever" in their standard
povray.ini.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How about changing the default output file type for both Windows and
> Unix version to PNG?
Why not for all versions?
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.04.2010 23:20, schrieb Alain:
>> How about changing the default output file type for both Windows and
>> Unix version to PNG?
>
> Why not for all versions?
With me having not much of an idea about Macs anyway, I pass that
question on to any Mac experts listening right now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> I think the paramount critera should be that (a) the files can be easily
> exchanged between applications as well as via the internet, and (b) the
> file format does not use lossy compression.
Yes, I do see the need for that. But as a practical matter, I wonder if there is
a discernable visual difference between a .png file and one saved as a
highest-quality .jpeg? (I suppose that's open to debate.) The real point being
that .jpeg *is* a universal standard (lossy, of course); but more importantly,
it has no embedded gamma (AFAIK!!)--which means that how it shows up in
application X is basically the same as in app Y or app Z--regardless of how
those apps deal with embedded gamma in an image. I guess mt main worry is this:
Not all of us have the *latest and greatest* versions of
image-manipulation/viewing software, to view 'correct' .png images in. (My own
version of Photoshop is quite outdated, for example, and AFAIK doesn't read
embedded gamma correctly. And I'm even wondering about the latest version of
Firefox!) I suppose that most/all up-to-date versions of software have addressed
this issue--but that's just a guess. In the final analysis: Can we expect a .png
image to show up correctly even in all 'modern' software? A .jpeg image
eliminates that question (given it's image-quality shortcomings.)
> As for gamma, note that gamma issues also exist with any other image
> format..
True--but that's across-the-board, as you say. I.e., with an image format
lacking an embedded gamma, it's a monitor/system-set-up problem, not an
image-specific one.
>
> For a user adhering to best practices, /at worst/ PNG will still be just
> as good as any other formats.
>
Given *best practices* of course. :-P If such a .png 'default' is made a part
of POV-Ray, I can only hope that the documentation will make it clear as to what
those best practices are. In the past, this situation has been a can of worms.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.04.2010 00:14, schrieb Kenneth:
> Yes, I do see the need for that. But as a practical matter, I wonder if there is
> a discernable visual difference between a .png file and one saved as a
> highest-quality .jpeg? (I suppose that's open to debate.) The real point being
> that .jpeg *is* a universal standard (lossy, of course); but more importantly,
> it has no embedded gamma (AFAIK!!)--which means that how it shows up in
> application X is basically the same as in app Y or app Z--regardless of how
> those apps deal with embedded gamma in an image.
What you forget about is that...
(1) JPEG having no gamma chunk means that it will indeed probably show
identical in all apps on /your/ computer, but that doesn't mean it will
look like that on /other/ computers.
(2) If your computer has a display gamma of 2.2, then specifying
File_Gamma=2.2 will give you /exactly/ that same feature for PNG files:
Applications that do recognize the gAMA chunks will display it ok
because they know the gamma, and other applications will display it ok
because the gamma happens to match your computer's display gamma. Plus,
/good/ software on /other/ computers will display the image ok even if
that computer has a nonstandard gamma.
(3) If /your/ computer has a nonstandard display gamma - say, 1.8 - then
using PNG will give you /some/ chance that it will look the same on both
your computer and other computers (depending on the quality of the
software used), while with any other file format (except HDR formats)
you are /guaranteed/ that it will look /different/.
> I guess mt main worry is this:
> Not all of us have the *latest and greatest* versions of
> image-manipulation/viewing software, to view 'correct' .png images in. (My own
> version of Photoshop is quite outdated, for example, and AFAIK doesn't read
> embedded gamma correctly. And I'm even wondering about the latest version of
> Firefox!) I suppose that most/all up-to-date versions of software have addressed
> this issue--but that's just a guess. In the final analysis: Can we expect a .png
> image to show up correctly even in all 'modern' software? A .jpeg image
> eliminates that question (given it's image-quality shortcomings.)
Yes - if you have your display system set up to exhibit a total gamma of
2.2 (or your system is uncalibrated, in which case you're likely to have
a gamma /somewhere/ around 2.2), and use File_Gamma=2.2, then the
chances that a PNG will look the same everywhere is /at least/ as big as
that of a JPEG looking the same everywhere.
> Given *best practices* of course. :-P If such a .png 'default' is made a part
> of POV-Ray, I can only hope that the documentation will make it clear as to what
> those best practices are. In the past, this situation has been a can of worms.
It was a can of worms indeed - because POV-Ray didn't do input image
files properly until a few betas ago, making it literally impossible to
set it up properly. Current default settings should get you a long way
without you even noticing it (at least for new scenes; legacy scenes are
a different issue, being necessarily as "broken" as the old versions of
POV-Ray they were created for).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hmm, I vote no. Sorry to be the one nay-sayer here. Given the past
> problems of
> different applications not reading the embedded gamma of .png images
> correctly,
> is this a good idea? Or am I missing something that I should know about?
>
> Is this idea based purely on image quality (.png vs. .jpeg, for example)?
I don't think the default file type should be one that uses lossy
compression. However, I agree that the gamma confusion makes PNG less than
ideal. I'm not sure there's a better format though.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> > Hmm, I vote no. Sorry to be the one nay-sayer here. Given the past
> > problems of
> > different applications not reading the embedded gamma of .png images
> > correctly,
> > is this a good idea? Or am I missing something that I should know about?
> >
> > Is this idea based purely on image quality (.png vs. .jpeg, for example)?
>
> I don't think the default file type should be one that uses lossy
> compression. However, I agree that the gamma confusion makes PNG less than
> ideal. I'm not sure there's a better format though.
Not unless we want to get into the "business" of promoting one HDR format over
another, which... well, let's just say that standards wars probably aren't the
best usage of anyone's time here, with the possible exclusion of Warp. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
