clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> So you might as well stick to the default of `ambient_light 1.0`, and
> instead use:
>
>     default { finish { ambient 0.01 } }

I selected a random scene and changed the gamma setting to 1.0 and added this
default finish, but the rendered scene still had that "washed-out" appearance.
Does this have something to do with the differences between version 3.7 and
3.71? (I'm using version 3.7.)

Regards,
Dave Blandston

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.12.2016 um 12:53 schrieb Dave Blandston:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> So you might as well stick to the default of `ambient_light 1.0`, and
>> instead use:
>>
>>     default { finish { ambient 0.01 } }
> 
> I selected a random scene and changed the gamma setting to 1.0 and added this
> default finish, but the rendered scene still had that "washed-out" appearance.
> Does this have something to do with the differences between version 3.7 and
> 3.71? (I'm using version 3.7.)

No, there are no differences between 3.7 and 3.7.1 in this respect.

There are many reasons why a legacy scene may /still/ look washed-out:

- The scene might be using explicit `ambient` settings.

- Even though partial blame is now put on `ambient`, it is also still
true that pigment colours specified using `rgb` will /per se/ tend to
look less saturated and brighter in an `assumed_gamma 1.0` scene than in
a legacy scene.

- As demonstrated, non-linear gamma messes up /any/ combination of
multiple finish effects (e.g. diffuse and reflection) in a very
non-linear fashion; consequently, any scene tweaked to look reasonably
good despite these quirks /will/ most certainly look unexpected when
setting `assumed_gamma 1.0`, and will essentially have to be "un-tweaked".

- Another potential factor is that you may simply have gotten accustomed
to the excessive contrast of non-linear scenes over the years, and may
now be expecting more contrast than is realistic. (Reality is rarely
"moody" -- even professional photographers routinely "cheat" on such
scenes, from employing tinted spotlights to choosing a highly non-linear
photographic film to applying tonemapping in a post-processing step.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> - Another potential factor is that you may simply have gotten accustomed
> to the excessive contrast of non-linear scenes over the years, and may
> now be expecting more contrast than is realistic. (Reality is rarely
> "moody" -- even professional photographers routinely "cheat" on such
> scenes, from employing tinted spotlights to choosing a highly non-linear
> photographic film to applying tonemapping in a post-processing step.)

That's probably what has happened. Obviously you have shown that gamma 1.0 is
mathematically correct and that is very important to know. It's hard to resist
the richer, more dramatic colors that gamma 2.2 produces though!

Regards,
Dave Blandston

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.12.2016 um 22:01 schrieb Dave Blandston:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> - Another potential factor is that you may simply have gotten accustomed
>> to the excessive contrast of non-linear scenes over the years, and may
>> now be expecting more contrast than is realistic. (Reality is rarely
>> "moody" -- even professional photographers routinely "cheat" on such
>> scenes, from employing tinted spotlights to choosing a highly non-linear
>> photographic film to applying tonemapping in a post-processing step.)
> 
> That's probably what has happened. Obviously you have shown that gamma 1.0 is
> mathematically correct and that is very important to know. It's hard to resist
> the richer, more dramatic colors that gamma 2.2 produces though!

It may get easier once tonemapping is officially added to POV-Ray.

Post a reply to this message