Am 11.01.2016 um 08:08 schrieb clipka:

> The newest `master` branch should fix the interaction between image
> alpha channel and "transmit all" (and "filter all" likewise), AND also
> implement auto-detection of TIFF alpha mode.
> 
> As I'm not really sure whether some existing scenes might be relying on
> the old quirk, the new "transmit/filter all" behaviour requires
> "#version 3.71".
> 
> I'll publish one of those famous(?) semi-official builds once I've
> gotten me a fresh batch of round tuits (presumably next weekend).

Thomas' carrier pigeon just arrived with a batch of tuits, so here's the
newest semi-official Windows build:

https://github.com/c-lipka/povray/releases/tag/v3.7.1-alpha.8431463%2Bav74

Sadly there weren't enough round ones in the batch to also build a
64-bit binary, so 64-bit users eager to test-drive the new version will
have to make do with the 32-bit SSE2 edition for now. (Shouldn't be too
much of a problem though unless you want to render memory-hungry scenes.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 11.01.2016 um 04:09 schrieb Kenneth:
>

>
> By the way, would you mind posting your TIFF test image? The tools I
> have at my disposal to quickly create a TIFF with alpha channel all give
> me the other alpha mode.

Glad to; here it is. (Sorry for the delay; I had to help a friend move to a new
house yesterday. What a chore!)

The file is 1.37 MB on my end; I hope it goes through.

I'm not absolutely sure that my older version of Photoshop (v5.0!) produces TIFF
images strictly according to spec-- I recall that earlier versions of PS were
notorious for PNG problems-- so you might want to check the image's code to make
sure that it's correct.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'alpha_channel_tester_5_tiff.tif.dat' (1410 KB)

In article <56935522$1@news.povray.org>, ano### [at] anonymousorg says...
> As I'm not really sure whether some existing scenes might be relying 
on
> the old quirk, the new "transmit/filter all" behaviour requires
> "#version 3.71".

We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of 
updates... 
;)

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2016 10:00 AM, Dick Balaska wrote:
> In article <56935522$1@news.povray.org>, ano### [at] anonymousorg says...
>> As I'm not really sure whether some existing scenes might be relying
> on
>> the old quirk, the new "transmit/filter all" behaviour requires
>> "#version 3.71".
>
> We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of
> updates...
> ;)
>

64 updates to be exact.

Post a reply to this message

>>> As I'm not really sure whether some existing scenes might be relying
>> on
>>> the old quirk, the new "transmit/filter all" behaviour requires
>>> "#version 3.71".
>>
>> We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of
>> updates...
>> ;)
>>
>
> 64 updates to be exact.

I thought software developers were meant to be a clever bunch and used 
to dealing with floating point numbers etc, but they all seem to have 
this crazy idea that 3.10 is greater than 3.9 somehow. Throw in some 
versions like 3.16, 3.2, 3.23, and you have all manner of confusion.

Post a reply to this message

Dick Balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom> wrote:
> In article <56935522$1@news.povray.org>, ano### [at] anonymousorg says...
> > As I'm not really sure whether some existing scenes might be relying
> on
> > the old quirk, the new "transmit/filter all" behaviour requires
> > "#version 3.71".
>
> We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of
> updates...
> ;)

.... or you missed the details on how the "#version" statement works ;)

The "#version" statement takes a FLOAT number, with the two digits after the
decimal point being interpreted as the secondary and tertiary version number,
respectively; thus, "#version 3.71" means the scene is designed for POV-Ray
3.7.1.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2016 4:07 PM, clipka wrote:
> Dick Balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom> wrote:
>> In article <56935522$1@news.povray.org>, ano### [at] anonymousorg says...
>>> As I'm not really sure whether some existing scenes might be relying
>> on
>>> the old quirk, the new "transmit/filter all" behaviour requires
>>> "#version 3.71".
>>
>> We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of
>> updates...
>> ;)
>
> ..... or you missed the details on how the "#version" statement works ;)
>
> The "#version" statement takes a FLOAT number, with the two digits after the
> decimal point being interpreted as the secondary and tertiary version number,
> respectively; thus, "#version 3.71" means the scene is designed for POV-Ray
> 3.7.1.
>
>
Which implies a version of PovRay 3.71 The version on the site is PovRay 
3.7.0

An update.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> >>> "#version 3.71".
> >>
> >> We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of
> >> updates...
> >> ;)
> >
> > ..... or you missed the details on how the "#version" statement works ;)
> >
> > The "#version" statement takes a FLOAT number, with the two digits after the
> > decimal point being interpreted as the secondary and tertiary version number,
> > respectively; thus, "#version 3.71" means the scene is designed for POV-Ray
> > 3.7.1.
> >
> >
> Which implies a version of PovRay 3.71 The version on the site is PovRay
> 3.7.0

What do you mean by "the site"?

> An update.

One. Not a couple.

Also, did I mention that 3.7.1 is still under development? Its set of features
is not finalized yet, and the corresponding builds report as
"3.7.1-alpha.WHATEVER".

(Then again, yes - everyone still working with 3.7.0 missed a _couple_ of
_alpha_ updates.)

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2016 5:25 PM, clipka wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>>>>> "#version 3.71".
>>>>
>>>> We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of
>>>> updates...
>>>> ;)
>>>
>>> ..... or you missed the details on how the "#version" statement works ;)
>>>
>>> The "#version" statement takes a FLOAT number, with the two digits after the
>>> decimal point being interpreted as the secondary and tertiary version number,
>>> respectively; thus, "#version 3.71" means the scene is designed for POV-Ray
>>> 3.7.1.
>>>
>>>
>> Which implies a version of PovRay 3.71 The version on the site is PovRay
>> 3.7.0
>
> What do you mean by "the site"?

http://www.povray.org/download/


>
>> An update.
>
> One. Not a couple.
>

Funny word "couple" it can mean a small number ar well as two.

> Also, did I mention that 3.7.1 is still under development? Its set of features
> is not finalized yet, and the corresponding builds report as
> "3.7.1-alpha.WHATEVER".
>

It was certainly implied but I read the groups a lot.

> (Then again, yes - everyone still working with 3.7.0 missed a _couple_ of
> _alpha_ updates.)
>
>

:)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/12/2016 3:46 PM, scott wrote:
>>>> As I'm not really sure whether some existing scenes might be relying
>>> on
>>>> the old quirk, the new "transmit/filter all" behaviour requires
>>>> "#version 3.71".
>>>
>>> We jumped from #version 3.7 to #version 3.71 ?  I missed a couple of
>>> updates...
>>> ;)
>>>
>>
>> 64 updates to be exact.
>
> I thought software developers were meant to be a clever bunch and used
> to dealing with floating point numbers etc, but they all seem to have
> this crazy idea that 3.10 is greater than 3.9 somehow. Throw in some
> versions like 3.16, 3.2, 3.23, and you have all manner of confusion.
>

stack overflow! ;)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message