On 21-8-2017 1:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/08/2017 20:50, clipka wrote:
>> Am 05.08.2017 um 21:29 schrieb Kenneth:
>>
>>> I also downloaded my own original PNG image post (the one shown in these
>>> screenshots), and it appears correct in *all* of my various 
>>> image-viewer apps,
>>> no gamma change.
>>
>> Then you should ditch all your various image-viewer apps, as they all
>> seem to disregard the PNG file specification regarding gamma.
>>
>> Get LILYsoft's IC, which is the best image viewer/converter for Windows
>> I've seen so far. OpenEXR and Radiance HDR support included, and written
>> by POV-Ray community member "Ive".
>>
> 
> Seconded
> 

Terced

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20-8-2017 22:32, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.08.2017 um 09:00 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 9-8-2017 4:12, Kenneth wrote:
>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fire and fury is in vogue. ATM
>>>>
>>> Funny thing: I just now saw that belicose Trump statement on the BBC--
>>> I was too
>>> busy building my little city to take note of today's world events. ;-)
>>> N. Korea
>>> has some nutty leadership... but so does the U.S!! Like two little
>>> bully-boys
>>> daring each other to a fight in the schoolyard... with nuclear
>>> weapons. My

>>>
>>
>> That image has imposed itself on me too I am sad to say.
> 
> I must say that I find it rather comforting that in this reboot of the
> Cold War franchise the country I live in does /not/ have /the/ front row
> seat for a change.
> 

Agreed. Neither was our second row seat, I mus say... I still remember 
the cruise missiles business.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 05.08.2017 um 04:12 schrieb Kenneth:
> > I just noticed something strange about the PNG images I posted: When I look at
> > the small *preview* images here in my post (using the latest version of
> > Firefox), they look correct...
> > But when I click on the image previews here-- and the higher-resolution
> > versions appear-- the gamma of the images isn't correct! They look
> > darker, with more contrast.

>
> My bet is that you instead have a wonky post-processing workflow, as
> your PNG file is seriously odd: The `gAMA` chunk in your PNG file claims
> that the file was encoded with a gamma of 0.22727 = 1/4.4 (or
> "pre-corrected for a display gamma of 4.4", as it would be called in
> other file formats), rather than the typical 0.45455 = 1/2.2; I suspect
> that `gAMA` chunk is outright wrong.

Agreed, without reservation ;-) I have no clue as to why my (older v5.0) of
Photoshop would create such an *extremely* wrong gamma encoding. I knew it was
somewhat wonky (from reading about its possible PNG problems years ago)--but not
to that degree!
>
>
> For the JPEG file format, as far as gamma goes there's only a W3C
> recommendation for use on the internet. The file format itself is
> blissfully unaware of gamma. So you just have to pray that the target
> system /happens/ to interpret them in the way you intended them to be
> interpreted.

I assumed that just about all relatively recent flat-panel monitors are
factory-preset gamma-wise to show JPEGs correctly. I guess that has always been
my own rather dubious 'benchmark' for using JPEG vs. PNG. (And I'm coming to
realize that my own doubts about PNG actually owe their origin to my crappy
version of Photoshop! I've been using it WAY past its 'expiration date'. But the
'pain' of dealing with PNGs there is hard to forget.)

I now understand the newsgroup 'problem' I encountered with my
originally-uploaded Photoshop'd PNG file--that crazy gamma 4.4 image: The
'small' preview in the newsgroup is modified (for want of a better term) to look
'correct' no matter what it's gamma might be (or when there's no intrinsic gamma
at all, in the case of JPEGs); whereas the 'larger' preview (the much darker
one, in my case) shows the ACTUAL/awful gamma encoding of my image. And I was
assuming the opposite!

Post a reply to this message

On 19.08.2017 19:45, Kenneth wrote:
> Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowskiname> wrote:
>>
>> NIIICCEEEE. But dead, too.
> 
> Thanks. And I agree; it needs some 'city life' of some kind (not necessar
ily
> tiny people.) Some automobile traffic is my first thought (probably just 
'Yellow
> Cabs' to start-- those constitute the main traffic in New York City, BY F
AR.
> Only the most stout-hearted people drive their own cars there!) My own co
ncept
> of this city is basically a NYC-type place: congested, busy, kind of old,
 and
> not much greenery at all (except for Central Park there).
>>
>> Add also randomly various shop types to the bottom of the
>> buildings, some or many with fluorescent neon light.
> 
> Adding 'ground floors' to the buildings is definitely on my list. The neo
n-light
> marquees are a good idea as well; I hadn't thought of that. Although, for
 a
> night-time scene-- to show such lighting effects-- I think I would need t
o
> change quite a bit of my scene code; I didn't design the scene with that 
in
> mind. But it's not impossible! ;-) I *would* like to see the city lit-up 
at
> night. (The last time I was in NYC, I took some night-time photos out of 
my
> upper-floor hotel window, of the surrounding skyscraper buildings. They l
ook
> really magical.)
> 
> 
> 
I once did a scene with a daytime macro: the time could be specified (1,
2, ..., 24) and the sky colors and sky illumination would change
accordingly as well as building illumination. For now, you could work
with just "Day" / "Night".

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

On 21/08/2017 08:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 20-8-2017 22:32, clipka wrote:
>> Am 09.08.2017 um 09:00 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> On 9-8-2017 4:12, Kenneth wrote:
>>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fire and fury is in vogue. ATM
>>>>>
>>>> Funny thing: I just now saw that belicose Trump statement on the BBC--
>>>> I was too
>>>> busy building my little city to take note of today's world events. ;-)
>>>> N. Korea
>>>> has some nutty leadership... but so does the U.S!! Like two little
>>>> bully-boys
>>>> daring each other to a fight in the schoolyard... with nuclear
>>>> weapons. My

>>>>
>>>
>>> That image has imposed itself on me too I am sad to say.
>>
>> I must say that I find it rather comforting that in this reboot of the
>> Cold War franchise the country I live in does /not/ have /the/ front row
>> seat for a change.
>>
> 
> Agreed. Neither was our second row seat, I mus say... I still remember 
> the cruise missiles business.
> 

Pity us with our "Yes Mr President, no Mr President. How high should I 
jump, Mr President?", politicians.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21-8-2017 10:59, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/08/2017 08:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 20-8-2017 22:32, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 09.08.2017 um 09:00 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>> On 9-8-2017 4:12, Kenneth wrote:
>>>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fire and fury is in vogue. ATM
>>>>>>
>>>>> Funny thing: I just now saw that belicose Trump statement on the BBC--
>>>>> I was too
>>>>> busy building my little city to take note of today's world events. ;-)
>>>>> N. Korea
>>>>> has some nutty leadership... but so does the U.S!! Like two little
>>>>> bully-boys
>>>>> daring each other to a fight in the schoolyard... with nuclear
>>>>> weapons. My

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That image has imposed itself on me too I am sad to say.
>>>
>>> I must say that I find it rather comforting that in this reboot of the
>>> Cold War franchise the country I live in does /not/ have /the/ front row
>>> seat for a change.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Neither was our second row seat, I mus say... I still remember 
>> the cruise missiles business.
>>
> 
> Pity us with our "Yes Mr President, no Mr President. How high should I 
> jump, Mr President?", politicians.
> 

Very true indeed.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 21/08/2017 12:09, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> Pity us with our "Yes Mr President, no Mr President. How high should I 
>> jump, Mr President?", politicians.
>>
> 
> Very true indeed.


Sad to hear that's the world view. :(

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 05.08.2017 um 21:29 schrieb Kenneth:
>
> > I also downloaded my own original PNG image post (the one shown in these
> > screenshots), and it appears correct in *all* of my various image-viewer apps,
> > no gamma change.
>
> Then you should ditch all your various image-viewer apps, as they all
> seem to disregard the PNG file specification regarding gamma.
>
> Get LILYsoft's IC, which is the best image viewer/converter for Windows
> I've seen so far. OpenEXR and Radiance HDR support included, and written
> by POV-Ray community member "Ive".

(Sorry for the long delay; I had to deal with real-life.)

SO... I RE-downloaded my first image in this post-- the PNG file with the crazy
4.4 gamma-- and ran it through all of my image-viewer apps again (including
Lilysoft... which I *just* downloaded--thanks for the heads-up.) I made
screenshots of all of the results, and combined them into a JPEG.

It *appears* that only Firefox and Lilysoft are showing the image with its
'correct' (i.e., *mistaken*) built-in image-gamma of 4.4; the rest of the apps
are showing the image *as-I-see-it* in POV-Ray (i.e., *visually* correct*, but
certainly not at gamma 4.4.) My dilemma-- prior to this comparison-- was that
ALL of the apps that I normally use to view images (excluding Firefox) were
showing the image *as I originally saw it* (my concept of 'correct') and NOT at
its actual goofed-up 4.4 gamma.

The strange thing is, most of my image apps are relatively up-to-date (excluding
Photoshop, and maybe my Windows Photo Viewer.) I downloaded the rest of them
over the past six months, or perhaps a year at most.

Which leaves me with the bigger question: Which app to trust when viewing PNG
images?? I suppose Firefox and Lilysoft are the only answers :-(

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'image_app_comparisons.jpg' (739 KB)

Preview of image 'image_app_comparisons.jpg'

Forgot to include the screenshots from two other apps that I use-- VIRTUALDUB
and SMPLAYER. (Yep, I still use VirtualDub for 'special-case' images and
videos.) Again, both of these show what I consider to be 'visually correct'
gamma (NOT the actual 4.4 gamma.) I'm rather amazed and perplexed that so MANY
of my apps are not showing the image's true embedded gamma.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'image_app_comparisons_2.jpg' (521 KB)

Preview of image 'image_app_comparisons_2.jpg'

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Forgot to include the screenshots from two other apps that I use-- VIRTUALDUB
> and SMPLAYER. (Yep, I still use VirtualDub for 'special-case' images and
> videos.) Again, both of these show what I consider to be 'visually correct'
> gamma (NOT the actual 4.4 gamma.) I'm rather amazed and perplexed that so MANY
> of my apps are not showing the image's true embedded gamma.

Was it simply the evil thing that is real life that befell this thread?
In any case I enjoyed it and I thought the idea of adding buildings under
construction was quite nice. How about this contraption for a start?
It's about 750 objects and I could rewrite it with more parameters so it
better fits with the scene.
I can post the source if anyone is intrerested?
Best wishes, Architype

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'skyscrapeconstr.png' (825 KB)

Preview of image 'skyscrapeconstr.png'