 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
After a long break, I have started again working on a gamma tutorial on
the Wiki; see:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Clipka/Gamma
Comments appreciated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:04:24 +0100, clipka wrote:
> After a long break, I have started again working on a gamma tutorial on
> the Wiki; see:
>
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Clipka/Gamma
>
> Comments appreciated.
I've not had a chance to read through all of it, but first
impressions ... well laid out, and thorough! Nice job! I'm thinking that
perhaps I should find an appropriate place in the docs to add a link to
it, or at the very least a link to it in KB namespace ... would you be
open to doing something similar (documenting) all the fine work you've
done with radiosity as well?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback schrieb:
> I've not had a chance to read through all of it, but first
> impressions ... well laid out, and thorough! Nice job! I'm thinking that
> perhaps I should find an appropriate place in the docs to add a link to
> it, or at the very least a link to it in KB namespace ... would you be
> open to doing something similar (documenting) all the fine work you've
> done with radiosity as well?
Well, the gamma tutorial isn't finished yet - the most crucial part
("Getting The Render Preview Right") is still missing. And then there's
still some programming to do...
Let's put it this way: I'm generally open to the idea, but I can't
promise anything at present; so if anyone else would volunteer you'd
better not stop them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Clipka/Gamma
> Comments appreciated.
percieved -> perceived
While the information is great, I'm wondering if it's a bit too long-winded.
People get bored when reading a wall of text, which may be especially bad if
the important info (ie. the info which would be most useful for the reader)
is at the end. Most people might stop reading before they get to the info that
they need to know.
Maybe some restructuring of the article could help this. After a short
introduction, first explain *what* has to be done, and then explain *why*
(rather than the other way around). Even if the reader gets bored at the
middle of the article, at least he will have seen what he needs to do in
order to get things right, even if he still doesn't know exactly why. He
can later refer to the reasons.
Some brief history of why gamma correction exists in the first place
(going all the way back to the invention of CRT) and where the name "gamma"
comes from could be an interesting tidbit of information. This doesn't need
to be long. One single paragraph should be enough.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, and forgot to mention: The reflecting-sphere-on-checkered-plane shows
that something might be wrong with the output of POV-Ray 3.6, but it doesn't
explain why. It might be a good idea to explain what's going on with that
image and why it's wrong.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think this looks and feels very good.
While - to some extent - I agree with Warp, I believe the structure of the
text should remain as Clipka wrote it. After all, one can jump directly to
the practical part if one wants to.
To make that easier, I suggest to subdivide the text in 2 clear parts,
Theory and Practice, also mirrored (of course) in the Content, and increase
the number of code examples in the Practice part.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My own small 2-cents worth:
I kind of agree with Warp--the essay pretty much jumps right in with a rather
technical discussion. A GOOD one, of course--very well done!--but it needs a
short preamble, IMO, to get folks up to speed on what gamma is basically about
(as pertaining to *images*, which is what most of us first become concerned with
when doing CGI.) Perhaps something simple about how gamma basically bends the
color/grayscale values of an image, while leaving pure black and pure white
untouched. *Then* getting deeper into the technical aspects of CRT/LCD
reproduction, etc. I agree that part of the first paragraph, "...regarding how
intermediate brightness levels between 0% and 100% are interpreted," pretty much
says it all; but it doesn't quite grab me, or give an immediate picture in my
mind of how it basically affects images.
The best advice I ever heard about writing in general was, "Grab 'em right from
the start! Make it simple! Then they'll stick around for the details."
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, and I forgot to nit-pic :-p (My apologies if this isn't the right place
to do so.)
PERCIEVE is spelled PERCEIVE. I wouldn't normally mention it, but the word is
used throughout the text.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> Some brief history of why gamma correction exists in the first place
> (going all the way back to the invention of CRT) and where the name "gamma"
> comes from could be an interesting tidbit of information. This doesn't need
> to be long. One single paragraph should be enough.
Um... that information is in there already... so you got bored, hm? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> I think this looks and feels very good.
Thank you (and all others so far) for the feedback.
> While - to some extent - I agree with Warp, I believe the structure of the
> text should remain as Clipka wrote it. After all, one can jump directly to
> the practical part if one wants to.
Yes, I'll probably stick to this structure, despite unexpectedly
numerous comments that suggest to change it.
While I do see the benefits of structuring it the other way round, there
is a pretty simple some reason why I didn't: The order I used is simply
my style of writing. I'd probably have a much harder time trying to get
it the other way round and still be happy with the text.
Once I hand over the text to the POV-Ray community, everyone who feels
up to it is free to propose a re-structured version of the text. No
problem there.
I don't think this is really needed though. For the average user, the
how-tos important to them probably boil down to (a) how to properly
calibrate the system and set the Display_Gamma option, and (b) the
advice to stay with POV-Ray's default settings and let the recently
implemented gamma handling automatisms do their job. (a) is best placed
(or at least linked to) in the installation section anyway, and (b) does
not need an elaborate tutorial. For any issues beyond that, I guess the
user will need at least some background information so that they can
assess which of the tips are applicable to their particular problem. And
if they already have that information, they can just skip to the how-tos
by virtue of the table of contents. I think the section titles are
talktive enough for that.
> To make that easier, I suggest to subdivide the text in 2 clear parts,
> Theory and Practice, also mirrored (of course) in the Content, and increase
> the number of code examples in the Practice part.
I guess I'd make that 3 parts: One "what is gamma all about" section
giving background information, one "why should I bother" section naming
some pitfalls, and one "how to" section describing how to deal with
those issues.
I'm reluctant to already put this subdivision into place though; the
current lower-level titles' typography makes me uneasy, them being much
bolder and prominent than normal section titles. Looks like they're
currently not intended to be used.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
