Hello,

I'd like to be able to render high-bit-depth images to a file format
that is supported by Photoshop. The current support for PNG doesn't
result in a file that Photoshop can open as a "16 bit per channel"
image. Photoshop can open similar images in ".PSD" and ".TIFF"
formats, but not in any format that POV-Ray outputs.

I've been doing some film scanning in "16 bit-per-channel" mode
recently, and the improvement is often quite dramatic. It allows one
to dramatically alter an image using the "curves" and "levels" tools,
while maintaining the highest quality possible in the image data. Of
course the image is eventually converted to 8-bit-per-channel, but
doing as much of the manipulation in 16-bit-per-channel format as
possible is definitely a good thing.

So is there a chance of POV ever outputting a format that Photshop is
perfectly happy with? Perhaps even ".PSD" format? 

If not, could we at least have a convertor that changes a
high-bit-depth POV-Ray file into a 16-bit-per channel ".psd" file? 


Thanks for listening,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
: I'd like to be able to render high-bit-depth images to a file format
: that is supported by Photoshop. The current support for PNG doesn't
: result in a file that Photoshop can open as a "16 bit per channel"
: image.

  That's photoshop's fault, not povray's.

  I just can't understand why such an advanced image editing program is
so incredibly retarded when dealing with images with more than 8 bits per
color channel... It's just plain weird. If you switch to 16 bits per color
channel, you quickly find that 90% of the features are disabled.

: So is there a chance of POV ever outputting a format that Photshop is
: perfectly happy with? Perhaps even ".PSD" format? 

  Why should POV-Ray adapt to a stupid retarded program? Why won't they make
it up-to-date?

-- 
#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

+fp16 +oimage.raw

Open image.raw in PS as count 3, interleaved, 16 bits,
Mac byte order, guess.
 
_____________
Kari Kivisalo

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> 
> +fp16 +oimage.raw
> 
> Open image.raw in PS as count 3, interleaved, 16 bits,
> Mac byte order, guess.

I was under the impression that the .raw format had been discontinued -

5.2.2.3.1  Output File Type

Note that the obsolete +FD dump format and +FR raw format have been
dropped from POV-Ray 3.0 because they were rarely used and no longer
necessary. PPM, PNG, and system specific formats have been added.
PPM format images are uncompressed, and have a simple text header,
which makes it a widely portable image format. PNG is a new image
format designed not only to replace GIF, but to improve on its shortcomings.
PNG offers the highest compression available without loss for high quality
applications, such as ray-tracing. The system specific format depends on
the platform used and is covered in the appropriate system specific
documentation.



-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that the .raw format had been discontinued -

It's ppm but stoopid Photoshop doesn't even show the file if
the filetype isn't .raw :)


_____________
Kari Kivisalo

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Sep 2001 03:33:10 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
>: I'd like to be able to render high-bit-depth images to a file format
>: that is supported by Photoshop. The current support for PNG doesn't
>: result in a file that Photoshop can open as a "16 bit per channel"
>: image.
>
>  That's photoshop's fault, not povray's.


I'm not here to assign "blame",  just to mention that the two programs
don't currently cooperate in this matter of 48bpp images. I think it
would be very nice if they did. To remedy this situation, either
POV-Ray can be patched, a convertor can be written, or Photoshop can
have a new import plugin written for it. 

Guess what? This isn't a news server devoted to creating Photoshop
plugins, so that's why I wondered if there would be any interest in
creating direct support in POV-Ray for a format that Photoshop *can*
read properly, or to design a convertor program as an accessory to
POV-Ray.


>  I just can't understand why such an advanced image editing program is
>so incredibly retarded when dealing with images with more than 8 bits per
>color channel... It's just plain weird. If you switch to 16 bits per color
>channel, you quickly find that 90% of the features are disabled.


True, *most* of the plugins won't work on the 48bpp images, but the
most important functions *DO* work on these images. Things such as
cropping, curves, and levels are totally functional at higher bit
depths. Additionally, once an image has been processed by either
curves or levels, it no longer has to remain in 48bpp mode anyway. At
that point, it's a simple matter to convert the image to 24bpp, and
proceed to use any of the other functions your heart desires.


>  Why should POV-Ray adapt to a stupid retarded program? Why won't they make
>it up-to-date?


"Stupid retarded" ?   Why so damn bitter? 

There are a vast number of graphics professionals that consider
Photoshop the standard in professional photographic image editors. 

As for the "up-to-date" part, total support for every variation of the
PNG standard isn't exactly the most demanded feature on the collective
wish lists of professional photo editors around the world. In case you
hadn't noticed, PNG is something of an oddity in the professional
photo editing realm. 48bpp PNG images are probably a few orders of
magnitude less in demand than even their under-appreciated 24bpp
cousins.

As for the shortage of 16-bit-per-channel plugins, Adobe is working on
converting more of their plugins to higher bit depths in the future.
For now, they have the most important features supported at the higher
bit depths.

I simply don't understand the bitterness you seem to have toward
Photoshop.

Later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
: As for the "up-to-date" part, total support for every variation of the
: PNG standard isn't exactly the most demanded feature on the collective
: wish lists of professional photo editors around the world.

  FYI, PNG is not the only image format that supports more than 8 bits per
color channel. It isn't even the first, AFAIK.

: As for the shortage of 16-bit-per-channel plugins, Adobe is working on
: converting more of their plugins to higher bit depths in the future.

  A clear example of non-modular programming. If that plugin system was
modular enough, those plugins would automatically support any color depth,
be it 8, 16 or 1024 bits per channel.

-- 
#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

"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
news:6dedO9T6vv=rDoslu975NdVgkXWt@4ax.com...
>
> I simply don't understand the bitterness you seem to have toward
> Photoshop.
>

a messy divorce and PS got custody of the kids....

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
: I simply don't understand the bitterness you seem to have toward
: Photoshop.

  In my opinion not supporting bit depths larger than 8 is equally bad in
image processing as it is in sound processing (have you ever tried to work
with b/w images at 8 bits color depth?). Given the fact that photoshop
is quite expensive, one could expect some quality.

-- 
#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

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 05:56:28 -0400, Glen Berry wrote:
>>  Why should POV-Ray adapt to a stupid retarded program? Why won't they make
>>it up-to-date?
>
>
>"Stupid retarded" ?   Why so damn bitter? 

The point that Warp didn't get around to was that we spent hours trying
to figure out what's wrong with POV's 16-bpp PNG output, only to discover
that it's a problem with Photoshop's "stupid retarded" 16-bpp PNG import
that swaps the byte order.  Worse, it's a problem that's been around for
more than one major version now.  This is a problem that is not likely
to go away until Adobe gets off their fat lazy asses and fixes their
"industry standard" program instead of playing with their buddies at the
Justice Department.

-- 
#macro R(L P)sphere{L F}cylinder{L P F}#end#macro P(V)merge{R(z+a z)R(-z a-z)R(a
-z-z-z a+z)torus{1F clipped_by{plane{a 0}}}translate V}#end#macro Z(a F T)merge{
P(z+a)P(z-a)R(-z-z-x a)pigment{rgbf 1}hollow interior{media{emission 3-T}}}#end 
Z(-x-x.2x)camera{location z*-10rotate x*90normal{bumps.02scale.05}}

Post a reply to this message