On 22-3-2018 3:34, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.03.2018 um 13:11 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
>> I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks.
>> However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?
>>
>> It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.
> 
> Those are Poser figures, so I presume their materials also use Poser
> texture images.

Yes indeed. They render much better with the latest version of POV-Ray 
or UberPOV.

> 
> MegaPOV 1.2.1 - being based on POV-Ray v3.6 - completely ignored gamma
> for input images; if you already used `assumed_gamma 1.0` back then - as
> every good sailor should - MegaPOV 1.2.1 / POV-Ray v3.6 would
> erroneously presume the input images to match that gamma.
> 

I did and it did. :_)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/22/2018 um 3:22 schrieb clipka:
> I'd call that a bullshitty implementation then. After all, the W3C
> officially recommends sRGB for all web content, so that's what browsers
> should default to if an ICC profile is not embedded.
> 
> Also, a lot of images posted here are rendered with POV-Ray, which
> currently does not embed an ICC profile. So to comply with your request,
> each and every image would have to be post-processed before posting,
> which I consider unreasonable.
> 

You don't get my point. In practice nowadays nobody cares what the W3C 
did recommend a long time ago when monitors where CRT's and smartphones 
where not invented yet.
The color space of the majority of viewing devices currently used is not 
even close to sRGB and with upcoming 4k displays and even HDR displays 
for the consumer market they get even farer away. And as I mentioned 
before, this does not make just a subtle difference.
This was also not a personal request of mine (I know about the problems 
very well and can work around it if I want to), it is an advice for 
everybody who cares about what others will see if they look at an image 
one might have created with a lot of effort.
So what you call a bullshitty implementation is what I call a necessary 
step in the right direction.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/22/2018 um 8:47 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
> Does your IC do it 
> by the way?
> 

Ouch! You just ruined my day and almost my marriage as I promised my 
wife to do some cleanup in the garden this morning.

Anyway, I just realized that the IC version on my webpage is 8 years old 
(doesn't time fly by?) and therefor completely outdated. I just did put 
up a more resent 64-bit version of IC that supports ICC profiles for 
writing TIFF and JPEG files.

And BTW when I tried to maintain my website I noticed that FireFTP (the 
Firefox plugin I was using for this purpose since a decade) does not 
work anymore as Mozilla has changed its plugin policy and so had to 
spend hours to find some replacement that at least works somehow in the 
way I like it.
This also reminded me that I wanted to change my side from http to https 
... oh my, so many things to do and so less time ...

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 22-3-2018 12:47, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/22/2018 um 8:47 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>
>> Does your IC do it by the way?
>>
> 
> Ouch! You just ruined my day and almost my marriage as I promised my 
> wife to do some cleanup in the garden this morning.

Oh, the garden can wait. IC is much more important than either marriage 
or gardens, isn't it! ;-)

> 
> Anyway, I just realized that the IC version on my webpage is 8 years old 
> (doesn't time fly by?) and therefor completely outdated. I just did put 
> up a more resent 64-bit version of IC that supports ICC profiles for 
> writing TIFF and JPEG files.
> 
> And BTW when I tried to maintain my website I noticed that FireFTP (the 
> Firefox plugin I was using for this purpose since a decade) does not 
> work anymore as Mozilla has changed its plugin policy and so had to 
> spend hours to find some replacement that at least works somehow in the 
> way I like it.
> This also reminded me that I wanted to change my side from http to https 
> ... oh my, so many things to do and so less time ...
> 

Well, I shall expect a new version by tomorrow then... ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/22/2018 um 13:07 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Oh, the garden can wait. IC is much more important than either marriage 
> or gardens, isn't it! ;-)
> 
Yeah, sure!

> 
> Well, I shall expect a new version by tomorrow then... ;-)
> 
You misunderstood. The maintained site is already up and running and IC 
1.1.7 64-bit ready to download.


-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 22-3-2018 13:50, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/22/2018 um 13:07 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Oh, the garden can wait. IC is much more important than either 
>> marriage or gardens, isn't it! ;-)
>>
> Yeah, sure!
> 
>>
>> Well, I shall expect a new version by tomorrow then... ;-)
>>
> You misunderstood. The maintained site is already up and running and IC 
> 1.1.7 64-bit ready to download.
> 
> 

Wow. I call that faster than light! Thanks a lot!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 21.03.2018 um 11:52 schrieb Ive:
>
> > And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses
> > newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.
> > Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management
> > enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while,
> [...]
>
> ...the W3C officially recommends sRGB for all web content, so that's what
> browsers should default to if an ICC profile is not embedded.
>
> Also, a lot of images posted here are rendered with POV-Ray, which
> currently does not embed an ICC profile. So to comply with your request,
> each and every image would have to be post-processed before posting,
> which I consider unreasonable.
> [...]

I'm coming late to this conversation; sorry.

This surprising situation looks like a very big 'can of worms' that needs
further discussion, maybe in a separate newsgroup thread. It goes to the heart
of what we can expect our images to look like on other computers/monitors.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 8:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately 
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change 
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are 
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
> 

Following the comments, I re-assessed different elements, in particular 
de-saturating some of the image_maps used. I also gave dynamic t-shirts 
to the girls instead of the conforming ones in the original.

While re-processing through Poser, changing the facial expressions of 
the girls, the flag was changed. The letter 'N' may not really be 
visible any more but this version clears the head of Cathy which I find 
better.

As far as I am concerned, my final version.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'n_2018_05.png' (799 KB)

Preview of image 'n_2018_05.png'

Thomas de Groot wrote on 22/04/2018 09:36:
> Following the comments, I re-assessed different elements, in particular 
> de-saturating some of the image_maps used. I also gave dynamic t-shirts 
> to the girls instead of the conforming ones in the original.
> 
> While re-processing through Poser, changing the facial expressions of 
> the girls, the flag was changed. The letter 'N' may not really be 
> visible any more but this version clears the head of Cathy which I find 
> better.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, my final version.
> 

The expression are less solemn, but the t-shirts are really well done.
A nice version.
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2018 15:57, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> 
> The expression are less solemn, but the t-shirts are really well done.
> A nice version.
> Paolo


Thanks Paolo. I changed the expressions mainly because they were at the 
limit of what Poser can do correctly. I preferred to backtrack a bit.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message