|
 |
I don't understand this Gamma stuff very well. So I would like to ask some
questions.
My Monitor has Gamma 1.55 (or that is what Picture Publisher tells me) -
does this mean, that the Pic is brighter on your screen? Or does it mean you
see it the way I do, 'cause I rendered it with assumed_gamma 1.55? When I
raise gamma in PP to 2.2 it is much to bright. The colored stripes on the
tents are easily to recognize and quite bright with 2.2 .. hm, as I think
about it, you would not say the brightness is okay if you would see it this
way. In fact all those ugly details show up (I have to rework those boots!).
The lighting remains difficult because it changes dramatically dependent on
the use of radiosity, the color and structure of the ground and so on. A lot
of trial and error.
Marc-Hendrik
Default User schrieb in Nachricht <3968C82D.4E9B3230@computer.net>...
>
>Brighness is OK on a calibrated gamma 2.2 (sRGB) monitor.
>I would try cold blue light up and behind the scene.
>
>
>K.K.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
After some gamma correction this looks fine. A few things that I will mention
are that the grass clumps seem to be set out in a very uniform fashion, try
to get a bit of randomness into it, also the scene has an indoors feel to it,
probably because the sky is so dark, and there doesn't appear to be any moon
light shining on anything.
Nice work.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
6:51pm up 11 days, 18:32, 2 users, load average: 1.15, 1.05, 1.01
Post a reply to this message
|
|
