 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/01/2011 5:21 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> haha ... lets chat amongst ourselves then ... wonders why assumed_gamma
> srgb gives me what I want! setting it to 1.0 makes it WAY to light ...
> i'm gonna standy by how my display is setup ... interestingly enough
> Jamies scene with the tree (plant) in the corner looked just fine!
the Beta so unless I include a #version 3.7 in the SDL I get the default
#version 3.6
as I can and am still confused. Everyone is talking about CRTs while
looks OK to me (depending which angle I look at the screen, of course) :-D
I think that is the way it is meant to be as it is a study in light and
shadow. Changing the Gamma in PSP 9 to about 1.4 increases the detail so
I can see everything but increasing it further flattens the image
unacceptably.
officially released and Hugo includes support for the new features
before destroying my scenes in different colour spaces.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05/01/2011 12:05, Stephen a écrit :
> Jamie’s scene with the table, ball and oranges looks too dark to me but
> I think that is the way it is meant to be as it is a study in light and
> shadow. Changing the Gamma in PSP 9 to about 1.4 increases the detail so
> I can see everything but increasing it further flattens the image
> unacceptably.
IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
gamma.
If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
(I know, that CRT is too dark)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 11:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
> gamma.
> If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
> (I know, that CRT is too dark)
Perfect, then. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2011 07:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:>
> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
> gamma.
> If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
> (I know, that CRT is too dark)
>
Yes and after the recent doc additions on gamma handling I actually
decided that my display gamma (g-card) looked better with 2.0 instead of
2.2. about the plant being visible. I didn't notice the one in top right
corner until it was mentioned so I think I'm on the right track with
display setup ... vaguely can make out an outline of something there.
When I'm using assumed_gamma srgb I'm getting what looks ok to me
(Compass example) ... but hey I appears that I've joined the confused
side of this discussion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povray org> schreef in bericht
news:4d23571c$1@news.povray.org...
> On 01/04/2011 01:15 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 04/01/2011 5:06 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
>>>
>>> not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
>>> just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
>>> out)
>>
>> This corner is getting very crowded, now ;-)
>>
>
> haha ... lets chat amongst ourselves then ... wonders why assumed_gamma
> srgb gives me what I want! setting it to 1.0 makes it WAY to light ...
> i'm gonna standy by how my display is setup ... interestingly enough
> Jamies scene with the tree (plant) in the corner looked just fine!
My own solution was quite simple: Some time ago I have I set my LCD monitor
to srgb; POV's Display_Gamma to srgb; assumed_gamma to 1.0. And everything
has been fine since then. I cannot follow large parts of the gamma
discussion, but at least I have understood that these settings are
fundamental, so I do not bother about it any more. :-)
The only thing now is that in some cases I have to experiment with rgb <>
or srgb <> in my textures, but that is fun.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 12:27 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 07:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:>
>> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
>> gamma.
>> If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
>> (I know, that CRT is too dark)
>>
>
> Yes and after the recent doc additions on gamma handling I actually
> decided that my display gamma (g-card) looked better with 2.0 instead of
> 2.2. about the plant being visible. I didn't notice the one in top right
> corner until it was mentioned so I think I'm on the right track with
> display setup ... vaguely can make out an outline of something there.
> When I'm using assumed_gamma srgb I'm getting what looks ok to me
> (Compass example) ... but hey I appears that I've joined the confused
> side of this discussion.
>
Well I’m completely lost now. I can’t find Jamie’s image.
But from memory, I did not notice the plant until I had adjusted the
Gamma of the image then I knew it was there so could see it afterwards.
I’m beginning to liken this subject to Hi Fi, where the purists believe
that you should not have tone controls on your amp. Yes! But… ;-)
I suppose it a matter of personal preference.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05/01/2011 13:56, Stephen a écrit :
> I can’t find Jamie’s image.
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/images/persiana/persiana.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 05/01/11 13:27, Jim Holsenback escribió:
> On 01/05/2011 07:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:>
>> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high
>> on gamma. If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too
>> low. (I know, that CRT is too dark)
>>
>
> Yes and after the recent doc additions on gamma handling I actually
> decided that my display gamma (g-card) looked better with 2.0 instead
> of 2.2. about the plant being visible. I didn't notice the one in top
> right corner until it was mentioned so I think I'm on the right track
> with display setup ... vaguely can make out an outline of something
> there. When I'm using assumed_gamma srgb I'm getting what looks ok to
> me (Compass example) ... but hey I appears that I've joined the
> confused side of this discussion.
>
Sorry, I forgot to specify that I was talking about the plant on the
floor at the right corner, not the flowers over the table at the left... :(
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 1:54 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 05/01/2011 13:56, Stephen a écrit :
>> I can’t find Jamie’s image.
>
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/images/persiana/persiana.jpg
>
Thanks :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2011 08:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I’m beginning to liken this subject to Hi Fi, where the purists believe
> that you should not have tone controls on your amp. Yes! But… ;-)
excellent analogy ...
> I suppose it a matter of personal preference.
wise words indeed uncle stevie ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
