"Kari Kivisalo" <kki### [at] pphtvfi> wrote in message
news:3B731A2A.4B783AE3@pp.htv.fi...
>
> Outputted from pov as 48 bit linear. Compressed in Photoshop
> using transfer curve (intensity only) based on a film response
> curve from Kodak site. It's a typical compression curve. Then
> gamma 2.2 corrected and converted to 24 bit.
>
> My tests with the Cornell box indicated that correct fade_distance
> for diffuse sources is same as source diameter. The spotlights
> use (90^2/falloff^2)*diameter as fade distance because of the
> directional nature of the source. I'm not sure if this is correct
> but it looks ok. Any lighting engineers here?



At the risk of sounding dim, I don't understand what you are doing here.
This is just one of many of the more technical threads that I find are above
my head.

Are the two 'before' images you linked to really transformed into these
gorgeous images by post-processing? They look as though you have rendered
them again with radiosity. Is your process equivalent to both the
compression and expansion techniques used in audio production... compressing
the peaks whilst making the softer passages 'louder'?

I don't have Photoshop.. I have Paint Shop Pro. How would I go about
adopting your technique? Infact, could I impose upon you and ask you to
provide a sample scene/tutorial?

I have often wished for the ability to say Lightbulb(60) or equivalent, and
have the scene behave as much like the real world as posible, without the
tedious (and in my case 'blind') parameter changes. A fully featured .INC
would be great.

All the best,

Andy Cocker

Post a reply to this message