Op 16/04/2021 om 11:28 schreef Ive:
 > Well, my understanding was that this is not just about this particular
 > granite file, but about a correct way to convert in general old textures
 > from times were *never* assumed_gamma = 1.0 was used.
 >
 > Obviously this is not the case, sorry for this misunderstanding on my
 > part, but frankly you should have said so in the first place and should
 > not have added a bunch of buzz words borrowed from color science into
 > your header where these words make no sense at all.
 >

Yve,

Possibly, you are not going to read this, so I write for my own benefit 
(and for those who might be interested) and because I feel I am entitled 
to give a serious answer (after a bit of charivari to vent frustrations).

Initially, this whole exercise was indeed, about upgrading old files. As 
so often happens in the (creative) process, things evolved quite rapidly 
and soon enough granites21 was about generating a new granites 
construction, */based on the work of Daniel Meklenburg/*, I want to 
stress. I am afraid you missed the (gradual) shift to this new approach; 
I was taken by surprise myself I must confess. So, your contribution is 
/not/ a waste of time. On the contrary, it is invaluable for taking up 
the /original/ granites.inc and provide a comprehensive document 
corrected to the use of POV-Ray 3.7+ in a not too distant future. In 
your file there are many things I did not know/been aware of or had 
forgotten. So, again, thanks indeed for your contribution. You are not 
rid of me: in due time I shall give my comments on your file.

You and me, we are both part of the scientific community at large I 
understand. You are a professional (I guess) of the colour sciences; I 
am a professional of the geological sciences. The fundamental difference 
however between us, as I surmise, is that colour sciences are 
/necessarily/ part of the /exact/ sciences, while geological sciences 
are, for a large part, not. Geology is as much about reconstructing, 
from partly preserved items, environments and life from the past, 
without having enough elements to be able to do so in an /exact/ way. 
Where necessary, we make use of the exact sciences, and increasingly so, 
but we are as much indebted to creativity and leaps of faith in order to 
reach consensus and progress. We are rewarded by the visions and 
reconstructions of the ancient world as they evolve under our hands as 
it were.

This is why we have very different approaches to these matters of colour 
in particular. I certainly expect a rigorous approach from you, and I 
would have been surprised if you were not, in the matters of your 
expertise field. On the other hand, while acknowledging this, I feel 
rather free to use some results from the colour sciences as they are 
made available to the POV-Ray community, in maybe a twisty way but 
important for the creative process where the visible results are 
important. So, if I only talk for myself, I use different rgb and/or 
srgb elements together in the same scene and nobody can pinpoint them 
separately I am sure. I understand your irritation about the use of 
possibly inappropriate terms from the colour sciences and I got rid of 
them in the next version of granites21. Understand that my objective was 
to be as precise as possible, but without your kind of understanding 
this is certainly prone to errors.

A last remark. I take exception to your impatience when you mention that 
"it seems you did not even bother to look at my code" and that *within 
24 hours* of your initial post! I resent this indeed. You have 
absolutely no idea about the frequency and time I spend on POV-Ray, 
including reading and commenting on posts. I mentioned that I have a 
life in the Real World, as you have too I am sure, and that takes 
absolute priority. Well, let me tell you that during each 24 hours I 
spend maybe two hour *maximum* to POV-Ray (including posts), divided 
over several snippets of time during the day. So, gimme a break, OK?

All right. Enough about this. I hope you understand if you read this, 
and let's close the matter definitively. If you want to answer, you are 
welcome indeed, but I consider the war axe to be buried from now on.

Cheers

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message