Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> BTW, sessions expire after one hour of inactivity.
> 
> ...so also make sure your system clock is set right!

Session times are bound to the server clock and checked there. The cookie 
takes even longer to expire (not sure how long from the top of my head).

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Now come on people - that intro to my message was just to blow off a bit of
steam. Actually I was more interested in that Gamma issue :)

Post a reply to this message

Trevor G Quayle <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > (now this newsgroup interface bothers me... typing long texts is a PITA because
> > when you take too long the interface won't accept your message, and even the
> > browser's "back" button won't bring it back on screen - so you go typing it all
> > in again... arrrrrh!)

> I have learned this the hard way (many times).  Now I've learned to select all
> and copy prior to attaempting to submit.  That way if it fails I can just
> respond again and paste the text back in...

  How about just using a real newsreader? If you can't think of anything,
just use Thunderbird. It's easy to install and use.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Dec 2008 07:02:18 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  How about just using a real newsreader? If you can't think of anything,
>just use Thunderbird. It's easy to install and use.

Not everyone can use a newsreader at work on a locked down company machine. 
To overcome the newsgroup interface timing out I write my reply in word then go
through the process of "posting a reply".
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2008 07:02:18 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> >
> >  How about just using a real newsreader? If you can't think of anything,
> >just use Thunderbird. It's easy to install and use.
>
> Not everyone can use a newsreader at work on a locked down company machine.
> To overcome the newsgroup interface timing out I write my reply in word then go
> through the process of "posting a reply".
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

Yes, I can't access news servers from work so I just use this interface and, by
extension, I use it at home too rather than setting up a newsreader.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

On Fri,  5 Dec 2008 08:50:21 EST, "Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>
>Yes, I can't access news servers from work so I just use this interface and, by
>extension, I use it at home too rather than setting up a newsreader.

I use a newsreader at home so that if I'm offline I can check for answers to
things that have been answered before. Almost as good as TFM :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 04.12.2008 17:10, clipka nous fit lire :

> Just wanted to point out that the current approach is too limited in my opinion.
> There should be separate (!) options to gamma-correct (or reverse
> gamma-correction) for...
> 
> - preview output window (to adjust for the PoV-ray user's display of course, if
> necessary)

I'm a strong believer that the combination of graphic cards and display
should provide a gamma of 1.0: linear curve;
CRT with 2.2 imply a correction at the graphic cards of 0.45; from there
  the system then has a 1.0 display subsystem and all should be linear.
Opposite of <1.0, 0.5, 0.0> should be <0.0, 0.5, 1.0>, whatever the
number of bits per channel (I like 8, but you need a CRT; LCD do not
have so much bits for all colour... and they might not be linear)

> 
> - image output file (to adjust for the "end viewers'" displays, or
> post-processing steps that may expect a certain gamma correction)
> 
And for image format which support exposing gamma, another one ?
Picture_gamma & Correction_gamma... well find a pair of better names.

> - image input file, on a per-image(!) basis (to compensate for input files that
> may (or may not!) be gamma-corrected for different viewing conditions)

That's a post load gamma correction (beware, PNG for instance already
have one factor from picture: do you want to be able to ignore it ?)

> 
> - color literals, (a) on a scene-global scale and (b) on a per-color basis
> (maybe using macros; to compensate for colors "picked" in an image processing
> software from gamma-corrected pictures)

Global scene should remains linear.
A function/macro for gamma-correction of a colour might be interesting.
(given the computation, a function might be better, but I'm biaised)

> 
> Also note that *all* these settings shold allow for *arbitrary* corrections, not
> just the choice of either "no gamma correction" or "corrected for a gamma of
> 2.2".

Of course!
And please, by default, have a 1.0 everywhere.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I'm a strong believer that the combination of graphic cards and display
> should provide a gamma of 1.0: linear curve;

I thought that too, and tried configuring my graphics card that way.
Everything looked washed out. Because almost nobody who makes images or
chooses website colors or whatever has the gamma set that way.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> I'm a strong believer that the combination of graphic cards and display
> should provide a gamma of 1.0: linear curve;

I'm more of a realist than a believer in this, as unfortunately there is a
*significant* difference between "should" and "is".

If you want a raytracing software for an ideal world - fine. I want one I can
use in the real world.

> > - image output file (to adjust for the "end viewers'" displays, or
> > post-processing steps that may expect a certain gamma correction)
> >
> And for image format which support exposing gamma, another one ?
> Picture_gamma & Correction_gamma... well find a pair of better names.

No, why should there be another parameter for that? It's just another image
output format. If it records the gamma it is assumed to work on without
additional correction, then all the better.


> > - image input file, on a per-image(!) basis (to compensate for input files that
> > may (or may not!) be gamma-corrected for different viewing conditions)
>
> That's a post load gamma correction (beware, PNG for instance already
> have one factor from picture: do you want to be able to ignore it ?)

Possibly. I'd expect reality to come up with PNGs which actually specify a wrong
factor.


> > - color literals, (a) on a scene-global scale and (b) on a per-color basis
> > (maybe using macros; to compensate for colors "picked" in an image processing
> > software from gamma-corrected pictures)
>
> Global scene should remains linear.

One simple question: Why?

Some people may prefer to sacrifice the ability to do simple color additions,
and instead prefer to be able to pick all their colors from other programs (all
the more since PoV-ray doesn't come with a built-in picker).

Internal calculations should remain linear, but why scene? Why not allow people
the freedom to use a different gamma as default for all colors they enter?

Maybe one reason why so many people misused the gamma stuff is because PoV-ray
documentation makes a big fuss about it, saying "hey people, very important
thing: get your gamma things right!" - without PoV-ray providing enough options
to *really* get them right...?


> A function/macro for gamma-correction of a colour might be interesting.
> (given the computation, a function might be better, but I'm biaised)

A macro should definitely suffice - if you want to do calculations, even I agree
that they should be done in 1.0 gamma. So all that's needed should be a macro to
fix the input.


> > Also note that *all* these settings shold allow for *arbitrary* corrections, not
> > just the choice of either "no gamma correction" or "corrected for a gamma of
> > 2.2".
>
> Of course!
> And please, by default, have a 1.0 everywhere.

Personally I don't care about the defaults - as long as they work for people who
don't know what they're doing, and I can set them however I like.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Le_Forgeron wrote:
> > I'm a strong believer that the combination of graphic cards and display
> > should provide a gamma of 1.0: linear curve;
>
> I thought that too, and tried configuring my graphics card that way.
> Everything looked washed out. Because almost nobody who makes images or
> chooses website colors or whatever has the gamma set that way.

Yep. Which is because nobody who *views* websites has the gamma set that way.

Simple as that. There's a de-facto standard out there in real life. It's rather
vague, but it's definitely *not* 1.0.

One more reason why I'd like PoV-ray to support arbitrary gamma for output. It
may be wrong from a sort of religious point of view, but it works.

Post a reply to this message