 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
First of all, my deep felt appreciation for all the hard work done so far on
version 3.7. Thanks to everybody involved who has offered up a lot of free
time to bring us this little jewel.
A question now.
assumed_gamma is back again, but I am unsure about what its setting should
be. Assuming that my monitor screen is calibrated to sRGB, that my
display_gamma is also set to sRGB, my feeling is that assumed_gamma should
be 1, or should it be sRGB too?
Thanks for lighting my darkness :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03.01.11 10:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> First of all, my deep felt appreciation for all the hard work done so far on
> version 3.7. Thanks to everybody involved who has offered up a lot of free
> time to bring us this little jewel.
>
> A question now.
> assumed_gamma is back again, but I am unsure about what its setting should
> be. Assuming that my monitor screen is calibrated to sRGB, that my
> display_gamma is also set to sRGB, my feeling is that assumed_gamma should
> be 1, or should it be sRGB too?
>
> Thanks for lighting my darkness :-)
Simple: Use your scenes as before. We will provide a better way in a later
release. As for srgb, it is the reason why assumed gamma is back. There is
no internal consensus yet what it should be like and how it should be
interpreted.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.01.2011 10:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> First of all, my deep felt appreciation for all the hard work done so far on
> version 3.7. Thanks to everybody involved who has offered up a lot of free
> time to bring us this little jewel.
>
> A question now.
> assumed_gamma is back again, but I am unsure about what its setting should
> be. Assuming that my monitor screen is calibrated to sRGB, that my
> display_gamma is also set to sRGB, my feeling is that assumed_gamma should
> be 1, or should it be sRGB too?
>
> Thanks for lighting my darkness :-)
For physically accurate renders, go about it as you did with the later
betas, except that you add "assumed_gamma 1.0" to your scene.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you both, gentlemen! That answered fully my question, and was
corroborated too by the gamma showcase scene (as it should be, of course
:-) ).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I should maybe add that - in the gamma showcase scene - assumed_gamma is set
to 2.2. Imo, this should better be the default 1.0, in order to avoid user
confusion :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2011 04:03 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I should maybe add that - in the gamma showcase scene - assumed_gamma is set
> to 2.2. Imo, this should better be the default 1.0, in order to avoid user
> confusion :-)
>
> Thomas
>
>
i thought it was that way because it's using a gamma corrected scheme
... setting it to 1.0 mimics the more comfortable "old" way that
everyone was used to before all the beta changes. this topic has
certainly generated a lot of controversy hasn't it? it's pretty safe to
say that it's a moving target at the moment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.01.2011 11:52, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> On 01/04/2011 04:03 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I should maybe add that - in the gamma showcase scene - assumed_gamma is set
>> to 2.2. Imo, this should better be the default 1.0, in order to avoid user
>> confusion :-)
*WHAT?!*
(...hurries off, checks code repository...)
*AAAAARGH!*
> i thought it was that way because it's using a gamma corrected scheme
> ... setting it to 1.0 mimics the more comfortable "old" way that
> everyone was used to before all the beta changes. this topic has
I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
I'll fix it for the next release, but I guess you owe me one more ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
out)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/01/2011 5:06 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
>> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
>
> not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
> just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
> out)
This corner is getting very crowded, now ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2011 01:15 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 5:06 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
>>
>> not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
>> just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
>> out)
>
> This corner is getting very crowded, now ;-)
>
haha ... lets chat amongst ourselves then ... wonders why assumed_gamma
srgb gives me what I want! setting it to 1.0 makes it WAY to light ...
i'm gonna standy by how my display is setup ... interestingly enough
Jamies scene with the tree (plant) in the corner looked just fine!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/01/2011 5:21 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> haha ... lets chat amongst ourselves then ... wonders why assumed_gamma
> srgb gives me what I want! setting it to 1.0 makes it WAY to light ...
> i'm gonna standy by how my display is setup ... interestingly enough
> Jamies scene with the tree (plant) in the corner looked just fine!
I’ve not actually used these features in 3.7.
I’m starting my renders from Bishop3D which does not officially support
the Beta so unless I include a #version 3.7 in the SDL I get the default
#version 3.6
I’ve been following the discussion about different colour spaces as best
as I can and am still confused. Everyone is talking about CRTs while
I’ve not used one for more than 10 years. My Gamma is set to 1 and that
looks OK to me (depending which angle I look at the screen, of course) :-D
Jamie’s scene with the table, ball and oranges looks too dark to me but
I think that is the way it is meant to be as it is a study in light and
shadow. Changing the Gamma in PSP 9 to about 1.4 increases the detail so
I can see everything but increasing it further flattens the image
unacceptably.
Ah! Well. I think I’ll wait until the dust has settled, 3.7 is
officially released and Hugo includes support for the new features
before destroying my scenes in different colour spaces.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05/01/2011 12:05, Stephen a écrit :
> Jamie’s scene with the table, ball and oranges looks too dark to me but
> I think that is the way it is meant to be as it is a study in light and
> shadow. Changing the Gamma in PSP 9 to about 1.4 increases the detail so
> I can see everything but increasing it further flattens the image
> unacceptably.
IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
gamma.
If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
(I know, that CRT is too dark)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 11:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
> gamma.
> If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
> (I know, that CRT is too dark)
Perfect, then. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2011 07:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:>
> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
> gamma.
> If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
> (I know, that CRT is too dark)
>
Yes and after the recent doc additions on gamma handling I actually
decided that my display gamma (g-card) looked better with 2.0 instead of
2.2. about the plant being visible. I didn't notice the one in top right
corner until it was mentioned so I think I'm on the right track with
display setup ... vaguely can make out an outline of something there.
When I'm using assumed_gamma srgb I'm getting what looks ok to me
(Compass example) ... but hey I appears that I've joined the confused
side of this discussion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povray org> schreef in bericht
news:4d23571c$1@news.povray.org...
> On 01/04/2011 01:15 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 04/01/2011 5:06 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
>>>
>>> not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
>>> just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
>>> out)
>>
>> This corner is getting very crowded, now ;-)
>>
>
> haha ... lets chat amongst ourselves then ... wonders why assumed_gamma
> srgb gives me what I want! setting it to 1.0 makes it WAY to light ...
> i'm gonna standy by how my display is setup ... interestingly enough
> Jamies scene with the tree (plant) in the corner looked just fine!
My own solution was quite simple: Some time ago I have I set my LCD monitor
to srgb; POV's Display_Gamma to srgb; assumed_gamma to 1.0. And everything
has been fine since then. I cannot follow large parts of the gamma
discussion, but at least I have understood that these settings are
fundamental, so I do not bother about it any more. :-)
The only thing now is that in some cases I have to experiment with rgb <>
or srgb <> in my textures, but that is fun.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 12:27 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 07:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:>
>> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high on
>> gamma.
>> If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too low.
>> (I know, that CRT is too dark)
>>
>
> Yes and after the recent doc additions on gamma handling I actually
> decided that my display gamma (g-card) looked better with 2.0 instead of
> 2.2. about the plant being visible. I didn't notice the one in top right
> corner until it was mentioned so I think I'm on the right track with
> display setup ... vaguely can make out an outline of something there.
> When I'm using assumed_gamma srgb I'm getting what looks ok to me
> (Compass example) ... but hey I appears that I've joined the confused
> side of this discussion.
>
Well I’m completely lost now. I can’t find Jamie’s image.
But from memory, I did not notice the plant until I had adjusted the
Gamma of the image then I knew it was there so could see it afterwards.
I’m beginning to liken this subject to Hi Fi, where the purists believe
that you should not have tone controls on your amp. Yes! But… ;-)
I suppose it a matter of personal preference.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 05/01/2011 13:56, Stephen a écrit :
> I can’t find Jamie’s image.
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/images/persiana/persiana.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 05/01/11 13:27, Jim Holsenback escribió:
> On 01/05/2011 07:41 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:>
>> IMHO, if you see the plant on the top right corner, you're too high
>> on gamma. If you do not see the ball and the floor, you're too
>> low. (I know, that CRT is too dark)
>>
>
> Yes and after the recent doc additions on gamma handling I actually
> decided that my display gamma (g-card) looked better with 2.0 instead
> of 2.2. about the plant being visible. I didn't notice the one in top
> right corner until it was mentioned so I think I'm on the right track
> with display setup ... vaguely can make out an outline of something
> there. When I'm using assumed_gamma srgb I'm getting what looks ok to
> me (Compass example) ... but hey I appears that I've joined the
> confused side of this discussion.
>
Sorry, I forgot to specify that I was talking about the plant on the
floor at the right corner, not the flowers over the table at the left... :(
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 1:54 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 05/01/2011 13:56, Stephen a écrit :
>> I can’t find Jamie’s image.
>
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/images/persiana/persiana.jpg
>
Thanks :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2011 08:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I’m beginning to liken this subject to Hi Fi, where the purists believe
> that you should not have tone controls on your amp. Yes! But… ;-)
excellent analogy ...
> I suppose it a matter of personal preference.
wise words indeed uncle stevie ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/01/2011 23:56, Stephen wrote:
> Gamma of the image then I knew it was there so could see it afterwards.
> I’m beginning to liken this subject to Hi Fi, where the purists believe
> that you should not have tone controls on your amp. Yes! But… ;-)
I've heard it said that using monitor cables made of oxygen-depleted
palladium-coated 99.99% pure copper hand-dug by elite third-generation
miners using only bamboo tools so as not to bruise the copper and then
lovingly refined using only heat from yak manure and not from any yak mind
you but only hand-reared ones fed a diet of grain and beer and finally
packaged into plastic clamshells blessed with virgins tears can improve the
tonality of raytraced images at least 0.002%. At least, so someone in some
blog somewhere told me, I don't recall who, but I'm sure he was an authority.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2011 11:58 AM, Chris Cason wrote:
> I've heard it said that using monitor cables made of oxygen-depleted
> palladium-coated 99.99% pure copper hand-dug by elite third-generation
> miners using only bamboo tools so as not to bruise the copper and then
> lovingly refined using only heat from yak manure and not from any yak mind
> you but only hand-reared ones fed a diet of grain and beer and finally
> packaged into plastic clamshells blessed with virgins tears can improve the
> tonality of raytraced images at least 0.002%. At least, so someone in some
> blog somewhere told me, I don't recall who, but I'm sure he was an authority.
didn't you forget the part about the copper being only mined on the
third Thursday of each odd month ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 3:58 PM, Chris Cason wrote:
> On 5/01/2011 23:56, Stephen wrote:
>> Gamma of the image then I knew it was there so could see it afterwards.
>> I’m beginning to liken this subject to Hi Fi, where the purists believe
>> that you should not have tone controls on your amp. Yes! But… ;-)
>
> I've heard it said that using monitor cables made of oxygen-depleted
> palladium-coated 99.99% pure copper hand-dug by elite third-generation
> miners using only bamboo tools so as not to bruise the copper and then
> lovingly refined using only heat from yak manure and not from any yak mind
> you but only hand-reared ones fed a diet of grain and beer and finally
> packaged into plastic clamshells blessed with virgins tears can improve the
> tonality of raytraced images at least 0.002%. At least, so someone in some
> blog somewhere told me, I don't recall who, but I'm sure he was an authority.
Someone was pulling your plonker, cobber.
Everyone knows that the best copper comes from Olympic Dam (SA) where it
is refined by burying it in beetroot for 3 years, smelted with roo dung,
quenched with VB and drawn into strands by wallabies then left in the
cludgie to get insulated.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/01/2011 11:07, Stephen wrote:
> Everyone knows that the best copper comes from Olympic Dam (SA) where it
> is refined by burying it in beetroot for 3 years, smelted with roo dung,
> quenched with VB and drawn into strands by wallabies then left in the
> cludgie to get insulated.
nah, no-one would believe that, look, the yanks don't even put beetroot on
their burgers, they'd never accept it's used to purify their copper.
the fact is, the *best* copper comes from asteroids. now, being that we
can't quite yet go sailing out to one to get the buggers back ere, we're
constrained to getting it, grain by grain, from bits of said rocks that
have happened to fall to earth as meteors - which, due to their rarity,
explains why Best Buy is able to get away with charging >$2000 for HDMI cables.
after all, no-one would actually *pay* that much for a cable if there
wasn't a really good reason.
right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/01/2011 12:23 AM, Chris Cason wrote:
> nah, no-one would believe that, look, the yanks don't even put beetroot on
> their burgers,
And who can blame them? :-P
> after all, no-one would actually *pay* that much for a cable if there
> wasn't a really good reason.
>
> right?
>
You've not met my wife, then ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/01/2011 3:40 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 08:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I’m beginning to liken this subject to Hi Fi, where the purists believe
>> that you should not have tone controls on your amp. Yes! But… ;-)
>
> excellent analogy ...
>
>> I suppose it a matter of personal preference.
>
> wise words indeed uncle stevie ;-)
>
>
05/01/2011 3:40 PM,
Notes time and date. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/01/05 19:23, Chris Cason a écrit :
> On 6/01/2011 11:07, Stephen wrote:
>> Everyone knows that the best copper comes from Olympic Dam (SA) where it
>> is refined by burying it in beetroot for 3 years, smelted with roo dung,
>> quenched with VB and drawn into strands by wallabies then left in the
>> cludgie to get insulated.
>
> nah, no-one would believe that, look, the yanks don't even put beetroot on
> their burgers, they'd never accept it's used to purify their copper.
>
> the fact is, the *best* copper comes from asteroids. now, being that we
> can't quite yet go sailing out to one to get the buggers back ere, we're
> constrained to getting it, grain by grain, from bits of said rocks that
> have happened to fall to earth as meteors - which, due to their rarity,
> explains why Best Buy is able to get away with charging>$2000 for HDMI cables.
>
> after all, no-one would actually *pay* that much for a cable if there
> wasn't a really good reason.
>
> right?
>
The reason most will give you is:
At that price, it *MUST* be a very good cable!
The fact that there are others much cheaper that are just as good is of
no concern. They will tell you that the cheaper cable just can't be as
good, that it's impossible. Even if the cheap and grosly expensive
cables are exactly the same with only a different packaging.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht
news:4d278609@news.povray.org...
Even if the cheap and grosly expensive
> cables are exactly the same with only a different packaging.
Everybody knows that it is the packaging that determines the quality. I
never remove the wraps...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
