I GET IT!

I apologize for raising such a firestorm here and hope you can forgive us
old-timers for being so accustomed to our habitual ways of doing things. It is
hard sometimes to wrap our ingrained minds around changes that we are not used
to. Especially when they seem to contradict the fixed reference points,
mathematically and graphically and "commonsensically", we've used to test what's
true. My focus is graphics which uses a different approach. Not that one is
right or wrong. We can all get to the same place. Vermeer did it centuries ago,
but with different brushes and a different palette of tools. And like some of
us, we're skeptical of anything we can't prove to ourselves.

There are still issues with the limits of raytracing and its need for artistic
expression but that's somewhat beyond the immediate point. At least I now see
more clearly how they relate.

What convinced me was a test of the well-known shadow illusion, just a cylinder
on a black and white grid:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2010/02/weekend_diversion_a_question_o/772px-grey_square_optical_illusio
n.PNG.png
In trying to reproduce it, it became obvious that 3.7 is, at least on a
functional level, basically identical to previous versions with assumed_gamma
set to 1. The only difference being that ambient_light, which previously I
seldom ever considered, and assumed_gamma, which I used all the time, now play a
very different part.

So, sorry and thanks especially to clipka for his patient and thorough attempts.

SK

Post a reply to this message