On 2022-02-26 04:53 (-4), William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 2/24/22 17:41, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>> I have named myself in the modification texts, yet the original authors
>> are not named.  This feels awkward.  Does anyone know who wrote the
>> originals?
> 
> I'd say attribute the work originally to the POV-Team circa 1995/1996.

Thanks.  It just occurred to me that these files were not brought under
Creative Commons until POV-Ray 3.7; prior to that, they were under
povlegal.doc.  From that document, it appears that the proper
attribution is to the POV-Ray Team(tm), 1996.

> Not definitive by any means - and before I started to use POV-Ray - but
> there is a file called 'metals.doc' which first shows up in my captured
> source tarballs in v3.0. I don't see it or anything like it in the
> earlier v2.2.

[From metals.doc]>   The differences between any two adjacent finishes
should be
> negligable, yet the differences between any three should be quite
> noticeable.  At least, that was our goal.

I believe that I have maintained this goal with gold.inc, less so with
metals.inc.  With the non-gold metals, there is such a wide breadth
between the dullest finish and the most polished finish that it is
difficult to have a gradual transition between finishes.  But I do not
believe I did any worse than the original authors.

I did see that the original scene files in the texsamps/metals folder
explicitly set assumed_gamma at 2.2, which would seem to argue for sRGB
conversion of the pigment colors.  However, the old finish properties
were such that they exaggerated the luminance of the colors; thus, sRGB
conversion would have made the pigments too dark with my upgrade, which
is evident in my first post to p.b.i.  Therefore, I will leave the
colors as-is.

Post a reply to this message