"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4985fa6fe879b872ef2b9ba40@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

> Nice work.  Seems like the glass could use a bit more texture though.  I'd
> expect the overall tone of the image to be softer and warmer for a lamp 
> like
> this.  Here's an example for reference:
>
> http://styleglass.com/tiffanylamp.jpg

 Thank you! I did a lot of searching but didn't spot that one - it's 
perfect.

  Yes, I definately need to add some varying opaque in there somehow.

    ~Steve~



>
> - Ricky
>

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4986067dfd113391f8450bd80@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>       I downloaded QuickGamma but it doesn't seem to do anything if I 
>> change
>> the numbers. I'm obviously doing something wrong. :/
>
> Why the * use QuickGamma, when all you need to do is check what your 
> *current*
> gamma is, set your POV "Display_Gamma" .ini setting to that value, insert
> "assumed_gamma 1.0" in your scene, and then go ahead to fix your scene's
> lighting conditions...

     But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>      But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)

But the rest of the internet is not. Think about them also :D


Really. Gammas should be checked and calibrated (even visually). You'll
benefit and the others will too.

Post a reply to this message

And just a bit of media to show the light cone.....

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:49886d02$1@news.povray.org...
> And just a bit of media to show the light cone.....

    Of course. That's one thing that I've done before, and it looks quite 
good, so I'll try it again. But not now as I have to crack on with my TC-RTC 
image.  :)

     ~Steve~



>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Severi Salminen" <sev### [at] NOTTHISsaunalahtifiinvalid> wrote in 
message news:498849bb@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>>      But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)
>
> But the rest of the internet is not. Think about them also :D

     LOL! You're correct of course... ;)


>
>
> Really. Gammas should be checked and calibrated (even visually). You'll
> benefit and the others will too.

    So what you're really saying is adjust my monitor to 2.2 and then add it 
to assumed_gamma 2.2 in my scene and then adjust my scene using correct 
ambients until it looks right. But I kind of do that anyway, apart from my 
assumed_gamma is .75. I thought the idea was to play around in SDL to get 
something good out of it? ;)

    It's confusing, that's for sure. I mean, you must be seeing the same as 
me, right? I'm sure I would have had more comments about 'washed out', or 
'too dark' by now if you weren't.  :)

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > Why the * use QuickGamma, when all you need to do is check what your
> > *current*
> > gamma is, set your POV "Display_Gamma" .ini setting to that value, insert
> > "assumed_gamma 1.0" in your scene, and then go ahead to fix your scene's
> > lighting conditions...
>
>      But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)

Darn - I was hoping I could convince you ;)

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     So what you're really saying is adjust my monitor to 2.2 and then add it
> to assumed_gamma 2.2 in my scene

Noooooo! Stooooooop! (*grabs & pulls away keyboard*)

Phew, that was close...

No, *please* don't set "assumed_gamma" to 2.2... I have the theory that it
should be set to 1.0 actually; Set "Display_Gamma" to 2.2 instead, and see what
it does. Check with that "Gamma Test Scene" I posted.

And I wish people would leave that freakin' ambient alone, and use *proper*
lighting, like radiosity and HDR light maps and stuff like that... no surprise
people keep fighting with material settings...


You remember that "Immortal Game" scene? Well, bet you do ;) In case you forgot
where to find it:

http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index185.html

(Okay, that's actually for people reading this thread and wondering, "what the
heck is he talking about" ;))

Look at the white knight's mane (upper part, that's a raytraced square).

Guess how long I've been struggling to make good gold or brass textures?

I tell you - for hours on end. And I bet I'm not the only one.

Now guess how long it took me to get the gold material in this shot right (not
talking about the bump mapping here, just color and reflection and all)?

Just a freakin' five minutes; once I had gone for the HDR image for background,
it all came just naturally.

How long do you think I did tinker with the materials for the marble pieces?

Not much work there either.

I think there's a secret here: You can toy around with reflective materials for
ages and ages - if they don't have anything good to reflect, they'll always
look like something else than you intend them to. But if they do have proper
surroundings, it's all a piece of cake.

The same goes for dull materials and a proper lighting model. Radiosity makes
*so* much of a difference. Image-based lighting works good, too (except that
POV doesn't have it). Even if you don't really *see* it in a shot: You *feel*
it, somehow.

(And likewise, to get proper results, the gamma settings need to be right... ;))

Having spent a bit of time trying to sort out the whole gamma smash, I guess
your setting of "assumed_gamma 0.75" isn't so bad after all - in combination
with a "Display_Gamma" of 1.0 it should have roughly the same effect as the
combo "assumed_gamma 1.0" and "Display_Gamma=2.2". However, the drawback is
that you can't properly render other people's scenes that have an "assumed
gamma 1.0" statement, and others can't properly render your scenes either.

And defining translucent materials with an "ambient" term... yuck! I bet you do
that for a purpose, but... well, I guess it's time POV learns how to do fast
subsurface scattering instead, 'cause I bet that's what you try to emulate...
(did I mention that I don't think too much of that "ambient" thing? :P)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4988eb2dfd1133915c2186730@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>     So what you're really saying is adjust my monitor to 2.2 and then add 
>> it
>> to assumed_gamma 2.2 in my scene
>
> Noooooo! Stooooooop! (*grabs & pulls away keyboard*)
>
> Phew, that was close...

It was indeed  :-)


> No, *please* don't set "assumed_gamma" to 2.2... I have the theory that it
> should be set to 1.0 actually; Set "Display_Gamma" to 2.2 instead, and see 
> what
> it does. Check with that "Gamma Test Scene" I posted.

Exactly! assumed_gamma 1.0; display_gamma to whatever value is correct for 
your machine.


> And I wish people would leave that freakin' ambient alone, and use 
> *proper*
> lighting, like radiosity and HDR light maps and stuff like that... no 
> surprise
> people keep fighting with material settings...

My experience is that, with translucent surfaces used as lamp shades, a bit 
of ambient on the texture finish is working just fine. In all other cases 
ambient should be 0.

I know you disagree on the translucency bit, but it works, even if it is not 
orthodox usage  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:58:54 +0100, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>
>My experience is that, with translucent surfaces used as lamp shades, a bit 
>of ambient on the texture finish is working just fine. In all other cases 
>ambient should be 0.

I can't say that I agree with you about using an ambient of zero unless you are
talking about radiosity scenes. And I will stay away from them until Christoph
fixes the code for that. I typically use an ambient between 0.1 and 0.3 for
everyday scenes.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message