"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Bluntly put. You're making this much too complicated. It's certainly less
> > complicated than dealing with color management for print. You make a
> > picture
> > that looks good on your computer. It doesn't matter how you do it.
>
> In something like PhotoShop, sure, but POV is almost a light simulation
> tool, it needs to follow the correct laws of physics in the first place.
> Sure you can botch it and create something that looks realistic, but it
> won't be exactly physically correct, and usually would require a great deal
> more skill and effort from the artist.  POV works on the fact that if it
> deems something should be 50% brightness, it will make it look 50%
> brightness to you (which is not the same as 50% pixel value).  If it didn't
> work this way it becomes impossible to get scenes with physically correct
> lighting, and then you need to start the whole skillful and time-consuming
> "bodge" process of trying to make it "look right".

This makes the point very clearly. But in the particular example of the
gradients that for me set this off was that I was trying to deal with a
completely graphics issue: rgb 0.5 ambient 1. There is no light involved here.
Ambient is not a real property, it is a completely artificial adjustment control
that does not exist in the real world. Some of us are not always dealing
necessarily with how much light is reflected off a piece of white paper in the
real world. We just want to make a picture by telling POV give me rgb 128.

Post a reply to this message