 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> In article <39C157EB.210EB232@unforgettable.com>,
> inq### [at] unforgettable com wrote:
>
> > Besides, part of the problem is that POV-Ray is incapable of handling
> > scenes with high levels of contrast which are meaningful to the human
> > eye. If it can't generate this much contrast - even algorithmically,
> > before it ever puts pixel to screen - then how can it possibly extract
> > an accurate simulation from the crippled data?
>
> It stores colors as single-precision floating point values...isn't that
> enough? It is certainly far more than 8-bit...
Well, see, that's news to me! ^^;
I'm not a conventional programmer, so I never bothered to look at the
source code.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <sst2ssc5jcnh9kh4rl0l5g1u8fq4rn7lj3@4ax.com>, Peter Popov
<pet### [at] usanet> wrote:
> I am betting 50-50 that the post-process in MP uses the unclipped
> color values which are defined as double (I think) or maybe float.
You bet mostly right...they are defined as arrays of single-precision
floats, one per color component. And the unclipped, full precision
values are the ones used in the post process filters, one of the biggest
advantages over editing in a separate program(the additional available
information isn't as big an advantage, since you could also make a patch
to output it as separate data images to be used by an external program).
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Josh English wrote:
> >
> > Wow. Gilles Tran admits to "no artistical merit" and still produces an amazing
> > image.
>
> Artistic merit has just been redefined.
yup, sounds like what they do
"The poverty rate in America is now 0.0%!"
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> It isn't? Boy, I sure must suck then.. I've had reasonable success
> lighting a room with "artificial" lighting, but as soon as I try to open
> a door or window and shine sunlight in, my lighting model goes straight
> to hell.
>
> I suppose I could adjust the lighting so that the sunlight doesn't
> create numbers greater than one, but then my other lights get dimmed
> into nonexistence and so does my radiosity. A patch that bends the
> luminance in 48 bits *might* fix this, but it seems like a ghastly way
> to develop a scene, and I think some kind of adaptive scaling would be
> much, much better than clipping.
Well, if you want to get technical, it would be physically accurate to have those
artificial lights dimmed into nonexistence (assuming enough color depth). Then you
would just turn off the room lights, display the pic on a black background and stare
at it until your pupils have dialated enough... of course, the other problem is that
you'll never get realistic intensities, black levels or contrasts on a CRT.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> > It isn't? Boy, I sure must suck then.. I've had reasonable success
> > lighting a room with "artificial" lighting, but as soon as I try to open
> > a door or window and shine sunlight in, my lighting model goes straight
> > to hell.
> >
> > I suppose I could adjust the lighting so that the sunlight doesn't
> > create numbers greater than one, but then my other lights get dimmed
> > into nonexistence and so does my radiosity. A patch that bends the
> > luminance in 48 bits *might* fix this, but it seems like a ghastly way
> > to develop a scene, and I think some kind of adaptive scaling would be
> > much, much better than clipping.
>
> Well, if you want to get technical, it would be physically accurate to have those
> artificial lights dimmed into nonexistence (assuming enough color depth). Then you
> would just turn off the room lights, display the pic on a black background and stare
> at it until your pupils have dialated enough... of course, the other problem is that
> you'll never get realistic intensities, black levels or contrasts on a CRT.
I think you're missing the point. To avoid clipping problems, I have to
design my scene with extremely low light levels (read: "huh? there's
nothing in the image except this white square") and *hope* that it'll
look better once it gets adjusted. It would make a lot more sense to be
able to work at normal light levels, so I can actually SEE what I'm
doing when I test.
Or I could do what I'm actually doing now, which is to use only
artificial lighting, which ISN'T WHAT I WANTED TO DO. :P
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Disclaimer : this scene has no artistical merit whatsoever.
This is a breathtaking scene. I haven't read all the comments below yet, but
let me add my 2 cents.
Your modest comment is so dripping with irony as to be almost immodest!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> I think you're missing the point. To avoid clipping problems, I have to
> design my scene with extremely low light levels (read: "huh? there's
> nothing in the image except this white square") and *hope* that it'll
> look better once it gets adjusted. It would make a lot more sense to be
> able to work at normal light levels, so I can actually SEE what I'm
> doing when I test.
I wasn't totally serious. :)
Still, it's up to the user to keep their light within an acceptable range.
(BTW if you were doing an anim where a window/door opens, you could have the scene
wash
out and gradually come back into normal range simulating pupil constriction...)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> > I think you're missing the point. To avoid clipping problems, I have to
> > design my scene with extremely low light levels (read: "huh? there's
> > nothing in the image except this white square") and *hope* that it'll
> > look better once it gets adjusted. It would make a lot more sense to be
> > able to work at normal light levels, so I can actually SEE what I'm
> > doing when I test.
>
> I wasn't totally serious. :)
> Still, it's up to the user to keep their light within an acceptable range.
It's the notion of "acceptable range" that bothers me.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> It's the notion of "acceptable range" that bothers me.
Maybe POV could save all the pixels, then scale it so the brightest one is equal
to a maximum_intensity...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> Also, I had to add
> reflection to the chairs to make them look better, which lets me think
> that one last thing to improve in Megapov radiosity is it's ability to
> react like a regular light with some of the texture properties
> (highlights).
A little (belated) comment here:
I don't think radiosity light sources should create specular highlights.
Radiosity models diffuse lighting, while highlights are an artefact of specular
lighting - more specifically they are (specular) reflections of the light
source. So what you used here is actually a physically accurate method of
rendering specular highlights.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
