|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaap Frank <jjf### [at] casemanl> wrote:
> I'm curious Warp. I've shrunk the file you made yourself for the thread
> 'More Gamma Again' in p.b.i to a very small one. Now you don't have
> to see through your eyelids but can simple look at it. For me the 3.6
> side is lineair and the 3.7 side absolutely not. How looks this stamp
> on your monitor now?
The purpose of the image was not to show that the gradient is linear,
but that the middle of the gradient corresponds to 50% brightness.
In the original image there are horizontal lines alternating between
pure black and pure white, hence producing an overall brightness of about
half of pure white. In my monitor this 50% brightness of the sides
corresponds to approximately the middle of the pov3.7 gradient.
Of course it doesn't *look* 50% bright because the human eye doesn't
perceive the brightness linearly.
If you scale the image smaller, presumably by averaging pixels, you will
cause the sides to become (128,128,128) (as that's the average between
(0,0,0) and (255,255,255)) which does *not* correspond to 50% brightness.
It corresponds approximately to 50% *perceived* brightness, as seen by
the human eye, at least on monitors with a gamma of 2.2, but it doesn't
correspond to 50% *absolute* brightness, which is what the alternating
lines are producing.
In my monitor the sides of the scaled-down image look significantly
darker than the sides of the original image.
> Don't say it's the thrinking technic, because for me it's absolutely
> the same for the big and the small one.
I really can't understand in which situation the gradient produced
by pov3.6 looks linear and, at the same time, the alternating pattern
looks like corresponding to the middle of that pattern. As far as I
understand, if the pattern would look about the same as the middle
of the gradient, the gradient should not look nowhere even close to
linear, or if the gradient looks linear, the pattern should not look
even close to being the same as the middle of the pattern. Unless the
white lines in the pattern are, for whatever unfathomable reason, narrower
than the black lines (hence reducing the overall brightness of the
pattern).
I don't think it can be that the system is gamma-correcting what it's
showing on screen (so that the pattern would then match the center of
the gradient) because then the gradient would not look linear (it would
look like what pov3.7 produces by default).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Gamma of interpolated colors in color maps
Date: 23 Dec 2010 06:51:45
Message: <4d1337d1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.12.2010 19:34, schrieb Jaap Frank:
> Don't say it's the thrinking technic, because for me it's absolutely the
> same for the big and the small one.
(I guess you mean "shrinking"?)
Theoretically, if your your display is configured properly, the
/background/ of the thumbnail should look different.
> Can everybody react on this with which side is for them the right
> one, because I'm under the impression that more people see what I see.
Let me re-iterate the facts here:
- It is perfectly normal for the left (double-width) strip to /look/
more linear than the right (single-width) one.
- It is also perfectly normal for typical image processing software to
report the "RGB values" or "greyscale values" of the left strip as
near-"linear" (something like (0;0;0), (25;25;25), (51;51;51),
(76,76,76), ... (255;255;255), or 0%, 10%, 20%, ... 100%)
- It is also perfectly normal for typical image processing software to
average the black-and-white striped background to the same value as the
middle swatch in the left strip when creating a scaled-down version of
the image.
- It is however also perfectly normal for the original black-and-white
striped background to look more like the middle swatch in the /right/
strip when squinting your exes.
- The black-and-white stripes of the original-size image background
/inevitably/ generate a physical light intensity exactly halfway between
black and white, i.e. /truly/ 50% white.
=> The left stripe typically /looks/ linear, while the right strip
typically /is/ linear.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> => The left stripe typically /looks/ linear, while the right strip
> typically /is/ linear.
As I have been discussin in length in this thread, the definition of
"linear" is a bit ambiguous.
You can say that the right strip "is linear" (at least on a monitor with
the traditional gamma of 2.2) in the sense of radiant flux: The physical
amount of light emitted, when measured in watts. In other words, if you
counted the photons that are emitted by the right strip, this amount would
grow (approximately) linearly as we go down the strip.
However, while it may be linear in a physical sense as described, it's
not linear in a *practical* sense. It's not linear as perceived by the
human eye, nor is it linear when looking at the pixel values.
The radiant flux approach ought to give more realistic results when
calculating the illumination of surfaces (ie. how much they reflect light,
this "how much" being, precisely, the amount of radiant flux that the
surface emits). However, it poses a practical problem when the user tries
to create things like gradients that *look* linear, as perceived by the
human eye. This practical problem is only aggravated by the fact that most
people are already accustomed to programs handling brightness in terms of
perceived brightness (rather than radiant flux), as well as the fact that
pixel values map almost linearly to perceived brightness as well (at least
on gamma 2.2 monitors).
This will cause confusion. However, I'm not sure what the best solution
to this would be. (Things like the 'srgb' keyword and 'poly_wave 2.2' for
maps might help, but there are probably still tons of other situations
where such practical problems might arise.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jaap Frank
Subject: Re: Gamma of interpolated colors in color maps
Date: 23 Dec 2010 14:55:21
Message: <4d13a929@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>- It is however also perfectly normal for the original black-and-white
>striped background to look more like the middle swatch in the /right/
>strip when squinting your exes.
>
>"Warp" schreef in bericht news:4d135d05@news.povray.org...
> As I have been discussing in length in this thread, the definition of
>"linear" is a bit ambiguous.
Let me first say I don't want to start a new discussion between
two nonconverging opinions, because that's NOT what I wanted.
On the contrary, I want to understand why I can't get my three
monitors do what Warp and clipka are suggesting:
In principle I should configure those monitors in such a way that
the right striped side intensity correspond somewhere in the middle
of the right (3.7) strip. I can tell you that's impossible. There is no
way I can reach that.
Ive did send me to
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
to tune my monitors. You get three bloks with colored squares
inside other colored squares and a gray square for three light
intensities.
I've slide my sliders for red, green and blue for hours, but I couldn't
get it right. The result was awfull, the monitor was totally wrong
in color and brightness.
At last I took a fotograph of my daughters wedding and used this
to get the colors right. This fotograph has a lot of colors that I
have in my head to compare with (green from three days fresh leaves,
sandwashed wood of a bridge over a pond and so on). After I made
this the way I remember those colors I went back to this site.
Well, now it was exactly as it should be. What I couldn't do first,
I did in a quarter of an hour with this fotograph.
Further I learned that the monitors are not exactly gamma 2.2, but
about 1.8-2.0 for the dark intensities, about 2.0 around the middle
intensities and around 2.0-2.2 for the high intensities. Maybe this is
the difference between gamma 2.2 and srgb correction.
I'm planning to make a tutorial for it and put it in p.b.tutorials. It will
take about fifteen minutes to tune your monitor.
Jaap:
> Don't say it's the thrinking technic, because for me it's absolutely the
> same for the big and the small one.
Clipka:
> (I guess you mean "shrinking"?)
I missed that one :). Guess it's because Christmas is coming.
Jaap
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaap Frank <jjf### [at] casemanl> wrote:
> On the contrary, I want to understand why I can't get my three
> monitors do what Warp and clipka are suggesting:
> In principle I should configure those monitors in such a way that
> the right striped side intensity correspond somewhere in the middle
> of the right (3.7) strip. I can tell you that's impossible. There is no
> way I can reach that.
On your monitor, does the pov3.6 gradient on the left look about linear,
while the pov3.7 gradient very non-linear (with most of the shades being
much closer to white than black?
If you look at the picture from sufficiently far away so that the
patterns on the sides look gray, where would you put them on the pov3.6
gradient?
If your answer to the first question is that the pov3.6 gradient looks
way more linear than the pov3.7 gradient, and the answer to the second
question is that the pattern looks about the same as the middle of the
pov3.6 gradient, then I'm puzzled, as I don't understand how that is
physically possible.
An idea comes to mind: Double the size of the image (so that the
horizontal lines on the patterns on the sides become 2 pixels thick),
check that the pattern does indeed alternate between pure white and
pure black, and look at the image from even farther away. Does it still
look the same? Make it 3 times as large as the original (so that the
horizontal lines become 3 pixels thick). Does it still look about the
same brightness?
I'm wondering if your monitor is blurring or antialiasing the pattern,
causing it to become dimmer. Making the horizontal lines thicker should
remove that possibility.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jaap Frank
Subject: Re: Gamma of interpolated colors in color maps
Date: 23 Dec 2010 20:17:21
Message: <4d13f4a1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>"Warp" schreef in bericht news:4d13acbe@news.povray.org...
>
>Jaap Frank <jjf### [at] casemanl> wrote:
>> On the contrary, I want to understand why I can't get my three
>> monitors do what Warp and clipka are suggesting:
>> In principle I should configure those monitors in such a way that
>> the right striped side intensity correspond somewhere in the middle
>> of the right (3.7) strip. I can tell you that's impossible. There is no
>> way I can reach that.
>
> On your monitor, does the pov3.6 gradient on the left look about linear,
>while the pov3.7 gradient very non-linear (with most of the shades being
>much closer to white than black?
Yes.
> If you look at the picture from sufficiently far away so that the
>patterns on the sides look gray, where would you put them on the pov3.6
>gradient?
>
> If your answer to the first question is that the pov3.6 gradient looks
>way more linear than the pov3.7 gradient, and the answer to the second
>question is that the pattern looks about the same as the middle of the
>pov3.6 gradient, then I'm puzzled, as I don't understand how that is
<physically possible.
<
< An idea comes to mind: Double the size of the image (so that the
<horizontal lines on the patterns on the sides become 2 pixels thick),
<check that the pattern does indeed alternate between pure white and
<pure black, and look at the image from even farther away. Does it still
<look the same? Make it 3 times as large as the original (so that the
<horizontal lines become 3 pixels thick). Does it still look about the
<same brightness?
>
> I'm wondering if your monitor is blurring or antialiasing the pattern,
>causing it to become dimmer. Making the horizontal lines thicker should
>remove that possibility.
>
>--
> - Warp
Answers while sitting on my chair, so distance about 75 cm with
squinting eyes OR standing at a distance of about 4,5 m and wearing
my computer spectacles, so blured again (this workes quit good).
The square numbers are counted from above.
Picture enlarged with Paint Shop Pro 6.
Picture | Light intensity | linearity strips
| square number | impression
| 3.6 3.7 | 3.6 3.7
-- 0.75
m -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stamp | 5 3 | correct quit to light
1:1 | 6 4 | just too dark quit to light
1:2 not possible
-- 4.5
m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:2 | 7 4/5 | bit too dark too light
1:3 | 7 5 | bit too dark bit too light
1:4 | 7 5 | too dark just too light
1:5 | 7 5 | too dark just too light
Conclusion: It makes a rather big difference if you are close,
or further away.
Curious about the antialiasing I did put three spectacles on
top of each other and got a very good blow up of my screen
pixels.
With 1:1 the pixels are correct black and white, BUT black
coincide with square number 2, so not totaly black and white
with square number 10, so just not totaly white.
The pixels of the 1:2 until 1:5 pictures were totaly black
and white, so no antialiasing here.
I would say, problem nearly solved. Do the gamma test from a
good distance away from your monitor and blur good.
The linearity of 3.6 looks better then that of 3.7, but 3.6 is just
too dark and 3.7 is too light. Mind that this is for my monitors
which are LCD / TFT monitors.
Jaap
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaap Frank <jjf### [at] casemanl> wrote:
> The linearity of 3.6 looks better then that of 3.7
As has been commented several times, that's to be expected. The 3.7
gradient shouldn't *look* linear because it doesn't use perceived
brightness. 3.6 uses direct pixel values which, in most monitors, map
almost linearly to perceived brightness.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> pigment {
> gradient y
> color_map {
> perceptual
> [0.0 rgb 0]
> [0.5 rgb 1]
> [1.0 rgb 0.5]
> }
> }
> (The example also showcases the problem with the poly_wave workaround
> you mention, which only works for gradients running from [0.0 rgb 0] to
> [1.0 Some_Color].)
Now that you mention that, it's actually quite a problem. The
'poly_wave 2.2' indeed only works if you have one single color
transition from 0.0 to 1.0 in your color map (or pigment/texture map),
but doesn't work if there is more than one, as in your example. The
poly_wave function would have to be applied to every individual
transition, rather than the entire map, and this is just not possible.
As far as I can tell, there is no way in pov3.7 to replicate a pov3.6
color map (in terms of perceptual brightness) other than using the
'assumed_gamma 2.2' backwards compatibility trick, which then affects
*all* colors, not just the color map.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, there is no way in pov3.7 to replicate a pov3.6
> color map (in terms of perceptual brightness) other than using the
> 'assumed_gamma 2.2' backwards compatibility trick, which then affects
> *all* colors, not just the color map.
I'm wondering if what pov3.7 is doing isn't actually backwards.
What it currently does is, basically, "by default 'rgb 0.5' means 50%
absolute brightness; if you want 50% perceived brightness, use 'srgb 0.5'"
(or whatever will be in the final).
Perhaps it should be the exact opposite: By default 'rgb 0.5' means 50%
perceived brightness, and if you want 50% of absolute brightness, use ...
In other words, the "I want a gray shade that matches the black/white
pattern that gives me 50% absolute brightness" should be the special case,
not the default case. The default case should be "I want 50% perceived
brightness".
Likewise with gradients: The default should be *perceived* linearity,
the absolute linearity being the special case which has to be specified
in a special way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, there is no way in pov3.7 to replicate a pov3.6
> > color map (in terms of perceptual brightness) other than using the
> > 'assumed_gamma 2.2' backwards compatibility trick, which then affects
> > *all* colors, not just the color map.
>
> I'm wondering if what pov3.7 is doing isn't actually backwards.
>
> What it currently does is, basically, "by default 'rgb 0.5' means 50%
> absolute brightness; if you want 50% perceived brightness, use 'srgb 0.5'"
> (or whatever will be in the final).
>
> Perhaps it should be the exact opposite: By default 'rgb 0.5' means 50%
> perceived brightness, and if you want 50% of absolute brightness, use ...
>
> In other words, the "I want a gray shade that matches the black/white
> pattern that gives me 50% absolute brightness" should be the special case,
> not the default case. The default case should be "I want 50% perceived
> brightness".
>
> Likewise with gradients: The default should be *perceived* linearity,
> the absolute linearity being the special case which has to be specified
> in a special way.
I sort of agree, but I think perhaps a more general solution would be even more
useful; allow the user to specify the colourspace in which the interpolation is
working. So you can specify a linear coourspace, or a sRGB colourspace, or a
specific gamma, or (actually quite usefully) HSV or L*ab or some other non-RGB
one.
> - Warp
Cheers,
Edouard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|