The optimizations to the crackle pattern in POV-Ray 3.7 had the side effect of
changing the pattern.  (See "Crackle change?" in p.beta-test.)

I just rendered the Lightsys IV examples using POV-Ray 3.7, and this is how
demo_outdoor.pov rendered:

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'demo_outdoor.v3.7.jpg' (29 KB)

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor.v3.7.jpg'

On 26-12-2013 20:53, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I just rendered the Lightsys IV examples using POV-Ray 3.7, and this is how
> demo_outdoor.pov rendered:
>


Hmm... /this/ is what I get however.

Only added the version and uncommented the assumed_gamma. Did you make 
other adaptations?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'demo_outdoor.png' (261 KB)

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor.png'

On 27-12-2013 9:13, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Hmm... /this/ is what I get however.
>
> Only added the version and uncommented the assumed_gamma. Did you make
> other adaptations?
>

PS: additionally changing rgb to srgb results in this.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'demo_outdoor.png' (233 KB)

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor.png'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 26-12-2013 20:53, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > I just rendered the Lightsys IV examples using POV-Ray 3.7, and this is how
> > demo_outdoor.pov rendered:
> >
>
>
> Hmm... /this/ is what I get however.
>
> Only added the version and uncommented the assumed_gamma. Did you make
> other adaptations?

I made no changes to the scene description file.  I put Version=3.5 on the
command line.  In my version of demo_outdoor.pov, dated 2009 August 11 19:21:16
(11:21:16 pm UT), the assumed_gamma is not commented out.

What you posted looks similar to my POV-Ray 3.6.1 run, but the trees are in
different locations, the grassy terrain is different, there is no cliff to the
right of center, and there is a path going from the center to the lower right.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'demo_outdoor.jpg' (56 KB)

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor.jpg'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> PS: additionally changing rgb to srgb results in this.

The Lightsys calculations used to derive those colors all work in linear space,
so they need no srgb conversion.  (It also looks like you missed the pigment{rgb
Cl_trees} statement.)

Post a reply to this message

On 28-12-2013 1:20, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 26-12-2013 20:53, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> I just rendered the Lightsys IV examples using POV-Ray 3.7, and this is how
>>> demo_outdoor.pov rendered:
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm... /this/ is what I get however.
>>
>> Only added the version and uncommented the assumed_gamma. Did you make
>> other adaptations?
>
> I made no changes to the scene description file.  I put Version=3.5 on the
> command line.  In my version of demo_outdoor.pov, dated 2009 August 11 19:21:16
> (11:21:16 pm UT), the assumed_gamma is not commented out.

why version 3.5? It seems to me that if you want the scene rendered in 
POV-Ray 3.7 that should be the version number... or do I miss something 
here?

>
> What you posted looks similar to my POV-Ray 3.6.1 run, but the trees are in
> different locations, the grassy terrain is different, there is no cliff to the
> right of center, and there is a path going from the center to the lower right.
>

That path is a cliff similar to the one in my image but at another 
position. I cannot explain the differences.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 28/12/13 08:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 28-12-2013 1:20, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> Hmm... /this/ is what I get however.
>>>
>>> Only added the version and uncommented the assumed_gamma. Did you make
>>> other adaptations?
>>
>> I made no changes to the scene description file.  I put Version=3.5 on
>> the
>> command line.  In my version of demo_outdoor.pov, dated 2009 August 11
>> 19:21:16
>> (11:21:16 pm UT), the assumed_gamma is not commented out.

I have to agree with Cousin Ricky. I attach two images. The first is
rendered using v3.7 (setting #version 3.7;) and the second using v3.6.1
(setting #version 3.6;)

> 
> That path is a cliff similar to the one in my image but at another
> position. I cannot explain the differences.
> 

I also attach the original scene file (without #version)

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'demo_outdoor.png' (54 KB) Download 'demo_outdoor_36a.png' (226 KB) Download 'us-ascii' (3 KB)

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor.png'

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor_36a.png'

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 28/12/13 08:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > On 28-12-2013 1:20, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> >> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >>> Hmm... /this/ is what I get however.
> >>>
> >>> Only added the version and uncommented the assumed_gamma. Did you make
> >>> other adaptations?
> >>
> >> I made no changes to the scene description file.  I put Version=3.5 on
> >> the
> >> command line.  In my version of demo_outdoor.pov, dated 2009 August 11
> >> 19:21:16
> >> (11:21:16 pm UT), the assumed_gamma is not commented out.
>
> I have to agree with Cousin Ricky. I attach two images. The first is
> rendered using v3.7 (setting #version 3.7;) and the second using v3.6.1
> (setting #version 3.6;)
>
> >
> > That path is a cliff similar to the one in my image but at another
> > position. I cannot explain the differences.
> >
>
> I also attach the original scene file (without #version)
>
I try to render the scene with a modification of camera position ( location
<0,24,-100>*<1,1.25,1> ), here are the two versions of the scene:
First pov3.6

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'outdoor_demov36.png' (382 KB)

Preview of image 'outdoor_demov36.png'

And second Pov3.7:

A lot of differences!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'outdoor_demov37.png' (424 KB)

Preview of image 'outdoor_demov37.png'

On 12/28/2013 04:24 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 28-12-2013 1:20, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> I made no changes to the scene description file.  I put Version=3.5 on
>> the
>> command line.  In my version of demo_outdoor.pov, dated 2009 August 11
>> 19:21:16
>> (11:21:16 pm UT), the assumed_gamma is not commented out.
>
> why version 3.5? It seems to me that if you want the scene rendered in
> POV-Ray 3.7 that should be the version number... or do I miss something
> here?

Because it was written /for/ version 3.5--or at least seemed so until I 
discovered that the modification date was in 2009.  The intention was to 
invoke any available backward compatibility concessions so that the 
scene would render as intended at the time it was written.  But 2009 was 
during the 3.6 time frame, which shouldn't make all that much of a 
difference from 3.5.

The point is that backward compatibility is not available for the 
crackle pattern, which was the basis for defining the land form.

Anyhow, here is a comprehensive set of POV-Ray 3.7 runs:

demo_outdoor-v3.7-noset.jpg  - no Version on the command line
demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.5.jpg - Version=3.5 on the command line
demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.6.jpg - Version=3.6 on the command line
demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.7.jpg - Version=3.7 on the command line

The only differences I can see are to the brightness of the scene.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-noset.jpg' (25 KB) Download 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.5.jpg' (33 KB) Download 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.6.jpg' (32 KB) Download 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.7.jpg' (24 KB)

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-noset.jpg'

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.5.jpg'

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.6.jpg'

Preview of image 'demo_outdoor-v3.7-set3.7.jpg'