 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:3BF87412.4D329C7B@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> > I would like to see POV have more diversity in output because
sometimes
> > I -want- to have chunky colors, but I get the idea that they don't want
> > that.
>
> No need to develop ideas on the subject. They will admit it openly.
Poor communication on my part, "get" the idea, as in "understand", not
as in "receive".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: No, POV-Ray does not and will not *ever* support output to a palette based
: image format for exactly the same reason as there is no support for any
: other lossy output image format. No putting it on wish-lists and no number
: of user requests will change the POV-Team policy not to support lossy output
: image formats of any kind.
I personally support this principle.
(Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> we don't want the support headaches from people
> who output to low-quality JPEG or GIF and then come asking why their 37-day
> render produced this banded, artifacted, crappy image.
Anyone remember those questions about banded images on 15 or
16 bit displays :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2001 03:50:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> (Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
>lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
>component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
>I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
Kari wouldn't call this --^ "nitpicking" :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On 19 Nov 2001 03:50:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> > (Of course a nitpicker could argue that even a 24-bit image format is
> >lossy because POV-Ray calculates images using a float for each color
> >component, and a float has certainly a lot more accuracy than a byte, but
> >I think that's too much nitpicking even for me...)
>
> Kari wouldn't call this --^ "nitpicking" :)
Yes, for advanced users 24-bits isn't enough :)
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/room3_24.png
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo <ray### [at] engineercom> wrote:
: Yes, for advanced users 24-bits isn't enough :)
That's exactly why I'm amazed that most image manipulation softwares
(including the top-of-the-line ones, like photoshop) do not have good
support for color depths higher than 24 bits. Most don't have any support,
some of them (eg. photoshop) have some support, but it's very limited (eg.
most filters don't work in that mode).
In the audio world the situation is completely different.
In hifi editing, CD-quality is laughably poor. 48kHz is the absolute
minimum, and the most common standard for high-quality sound editing is
96kHz, 24 bits per sample (either stereo or 5.1 channels, depending on what
you are doing).
A professional hifi person will NEVER use a 44.1kHz device for what he
wants to do. It just isn't enough.
I have the feeling that we can do these approximate relations with respect
to quality:
Audio Image
----- -----
44kHz, 16bps <-> 8 bits per color channel (3-4 channels)
96kHz, 24bps <-> 16 bits per color channel (3-4 channels)
I'm just amazed that professionals don't demand the higher quality.
Just editing b/w images with 8 bits per channel is awful (you have only
256 shades of gray, which is completely insufficient for professional work).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bf8f49c@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> I'm just amazed that professionals don't demand the higher quality.
>
They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
: They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
: Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
Oh, I thought that photoshop was kind of #1 in image editing. I was wrong
(and for some reason happy about it...).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bf8f77f@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> Oh, I thought that photoshop was kind of #1 in image editing.
Kind of like MsWord versus (La)TeX.
The saddest is that many "who should be professionals" don't know the
difference, measured by the technical quality of the artwork I get on
my desk from top design bureaus :(
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3bf8f77f@news.povray.org...
> ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
> : They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
> : Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
It really depends on what is considered a "professional". Every professional
printshop/studio I've worked with uses photoshop as its main tool. I don't
know about Photoshop's shortcomings, but it looks that these people are
pretty happy with it. After all, 100% of their work involves making
brochures and business cards where apparently the sort of quality obtained
with more sophisticated software would just be a waste of money. For these
people, who represent probably the largest market share for Photoshop, I
guess that 24-bit editing is more than enough as it's unlikely that the
readers of a mail-order lingerie/powertools/stationery/whatever catalogues
will complain about the colours being a little flat.
Off-topic rant : it seems that lots of people consider that a "professional"
tool is some sort of supertool and that using it makes you a (condescending)
superhuman. I'd say that's marketing-enhanced snobbery in 90% of the cases
(the remaining 10% beging those few with an actual profesional need for the
extra bells and whistles). A professional tool is just the right one for the
job, period. If someone makes a good business using a particular tool, then
this tool is professional, but nobody needs a sledgehammer to swat flies...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
