 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all, here's a simple still life composed of primitives, CSG, and isosurfaces
that I just finished and wanted to share.
Cheers,
Rob
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rwm_stilllife_final.png' (1051 KB)
Preview of image 'rwm_stilllife_final.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.12.2011 20:13, schrieb Robert McGregor:
> Hi all, here's a simple still life composed of primitives, CSG, and isosurfaces
> that I just finished and wanted to share.
>
Nice! I like especially this left, err.. thing, mostly because I cannot
tell for sure how it would feel when I would take it in my hands while I
have a clear idea how the other objects would. Tension.
But your attached PNG image will look quite differently, depending on
platform/software being viewed. I have a 6th sense for issues like this ;)
See attachment: left side is Firefox (and Thunderbird and 98% of other
windows image viewers) and on the right side is IC (that is of course
correct and also conforms to the way it will be seen on all Macs, just
checked it out).
The software you did use did write colorimetric tags into the PNG file
that are simply ignored by, well just a guess, 98% of software in the
Windows/Linux world.
So I can only assume in what way you intended it and just want to make
you aware of this issue...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'clipboard_001.png' (835 KB)
Preview of image 'clipboard_001.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive wrote:
> See attachment: left side is Firefox (and Thunderbird and 98% of other
> windows image viewers) and on the right side is IC (that is of course
> correct and also conforms to the way it will be seen on all Macs)
My old Thunderbird 2.0 on Win XP, at least, showed the original
image in the same way as the right side of your comparison image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoft org> wrote:
> Nice! I like especially this left, err.. thing, mostly because I cannot
> tell for sure how it would feel when I would take it in my hands while I
> have a clear idea how the other objects would. Tension.
Thanks Ive, it's some sort of a nut (no idea what kind).
> So I can only assume in what way you intended it and just want to make
> you aware of this issue...
Hmm, the IC version is how it appears on my monitor, and as I intended. I wasn't
aware that there would be so drastic a difference, so thanks for that knowledge.
Just curious, is this JPEG of my WIP images (merged into a single file) more
standardized across browsers?
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'progression.jpg' (475 KB)
Preview of image 'progression.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.12.2011 23:12, schrieb Robert McGregor:
> Hmm, the IC version is how it appears on my monitor, and as I intended. I wasn't
> aware that there would be so drastic a difference, so thanks for that knowledge.
> Just curious, is this JPEG of my WIP images (merged into a single file) more
> standardized across browsers?
>
The JPEG is fine. It includes a sRGB ICC profile so there is no way it
can be misinterpreted.
The PNG would also be fine (as shown by IC) if Microsoft and some
application providers (including Adobe) would obey more to standards.
But I might have exaggerated with this 98% number, at least a bit ;)
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.12.2011 22:51, schrieb Christian Froeschlin:
> My old Thunderbird 2.0 on Win XP, at least, showed the original
> image in the same way as the right side of your comparison image.
Wow! This is what I call progress within the IT business.
My screen-shot was taken from a Windows 7 system and Thunderbird/Firefox
8.0 (and a Radeon 5870 graphics card which seems also to matter as I do
get slightly different results with Aero enabled/disabled).
Oh my...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, on my Win7 / Thunderbird 8.0 I see the image as on your right-hand
one (i.e. IC).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As always, a perfect little piece of eye candy. Interesting gourd
variety that you have been growing... ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry Robert for having occupied your thread with this partial off topic
matter and I already wish I would have kept my mouth shut in the first
place.
But this observation is at least on topic for people using Photoshop to
prepare image maps for the use within POV-Ray (and other rendering
software).
The image is the original PNG file you did post and I strongly assume
this was written by Photoshop.
Top row left to right:
Photoshop CS5,
Firefox,
Windows 7 build in Picture Viewer
Bottom row left to right:
Quicktime for Windows, (looks the same as on my MacBook)
Google Chrome,
POV-Ray render window (used as image_map with {ambient 1 diffuse 0})
I'm too lazy to do a similar compare on Linux right now but I am pretty
sure it will show the same discrepancy.
And actually it is hard to tell what would be the "right" interpretation.
IC follows exactly the PNG specification. It does both, it handles the
specified color primaries and it does handle the transformation of the
gamma 2.2 to sRGB response function.
But this also means that IC (and POV-Ray!!!) does show it different then
"meant" within Photoshop as Photoshop itself ignores its own tags when
importing the file again (and is as such consistent within itself but
not necessarily with the rest of the world).
Why Photoshop writes this tags that it ignores itself and not writes the
PNG in the same same way it does e.g. JPEG by simply adding an ICC color
profile will stay a secret of the Adobe developers.
Anyway, bottom line and to be at least a bit on topic: when you care
about your colors within POV-Ray do not use PNG files written by Photoshop.
And do not get me wrong, the PNG file format is fine and you should not
have trouble with PNG files written by any other application. And
besides that I strongly dislike the company politics of Adobe*,
Photoshop as image processing software keeps completely unrivaled.
It is really sad that color management on PC systems is still such a
mess. And I fear with the latest release of LibPNG (1.5.6) that has
finally and for the first time an in-build mechanism for transforming
exponential to sRGB gamma (and visa versa) the situation will become
even worse and not better as programmers are often not color experts at
the same time.
-Ive
*I never understood why so many people agree in bashing Microsoft.
Compared to the iron fist Adobe is ruling its market segment and is
continuously expanding in all directions, Microsoft appears more like a
bunch of 70ies hippies to me, well apparently rich ones, given that.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'clipboard_001.bmp.dat' (2321 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
