 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> 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.
Interesting. I never use ambient > 0, except values of 1.0 for
radiosity/environment lighting, and special effects like those that Thomas was
referring to. I find ambient > 0 makes images look washed out and flat.
Mind you, > 90% of my test renders use radiosity...!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:07:57 EST, "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com>
wrote:
>Interesting. I never use ambient > 0, except values of 1.0 for
>radiosity/environment lighting, and special effects like those that Thomas was
>referring to. I find ambient > 0 makes images look washed out and flat.
>
>Mind you, > 90% of my test renders use radiosity...!
>
I find that low levels of ambient save me messing about with fill in lights and
light groups.
Mind you I don't go in for photo realism much :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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 know you disagree on the translucency bit, but it works, even if it is not
> orthodox usage :-)
As I said: I guess we need a fast way to do subsurface scattering in POV, so
nobody needs to misuse ambient for that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.4989ade2fd113391768855fc0@news.povray.org...
>> I know you disagree on the translucency bit, but it works, even if it is
>> not
>> orthodox usage :-)
>
> As I said: I guess we need a fast way to do subsurface scattering in POV,
> so
> nobody needs to misuse ambient for that...
Agreed.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. 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 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? ;)
No! (Read below :)
> 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. :)
Do this (you seem to use Windows):
1. Open your Display settings and set monitor gamma to default value
(usually 1.0 means no correction. Choose that.). Ask me if you can't
find the settings.
2. Open this:
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart
Look at the chart on the right side. Take a few steps away from your
monitor and look it again. You should try to figure out the point where
the smooth gradient looks as dark as the striped pattern. You can read
your current actual display gamma. (Look at the example on the left side
for what to look for.)
3. If the actual display gamma is not 2.2 or close to it you have to
adjust the setting you found on step 1. Move it to one way or another
and you'll see that the actual gamma of your display changes. Find the
setting where the resulting gamma is 2.2.
4. Congratulate yourself! Now you just calibrated your monitor to show
decent values. Remember that this is not as precise as using calibrator
but gives you decent settings. Also, you have to set brightness and
contrast to proper values. Set contrast at maximum and use the "BLACK
LEVEL" chart on the rightmost side to set brightness.
5. Congratulate again!
6. Set the damn assumed gamma value to 1.0!!!
7. Adjust your scene to get good looks.
8. Yes, your image looks washed out on my screen. I think it would look
even more washed out if you had used assumed gamma 0.5 or 0.25.
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Severi Salminen <sev### [at] NOTTHISsaunalahtifiinvalid> wrote:
> http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart
>
> Look at the chart on the right side. Take a few steps away from your
> monitor and look it again.
Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
useless.
Looking at the display from just the same spot as you usually do and squinting
your eyes is usually the better approach.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
> viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
> steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
> useless.
Yeah, especially with TN panels. I use a MVA/PVA which is better. IPS
should be very good in this respect, too. I had a TN display for a few
days but I hated it because poor viewing angles. Not suitable for
anything where you'd like to have even slightly accurate colors. Don't
know if TNs are better now.
> Looking at the display from just the same spot as you usually do and squinting
> your eyes is usually the better approach.
Yeah, that might be the safest way to do it. Still, it is a shame
monitors are not factory calibrated - besides Eizos and some other Pro
displays.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
> viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
> steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
> useless.
This is especially true of these new-fangled glossy screens that are all the
rage with laptops. As if seeing the reflection of my ugly face is an
"improvement." Between the extremely narrow viewing angle (I can sense a
mismatch between my eyes just by tilting my head) and the reflection, setting
the gamma is nearly impossible.
(I'm just as puzzled over the popularity of glossy magazines and of the glossy
varnishes used on paintings. I just find myself frustrated with the reflection
of the room and room lighting interfering with the picture or magazine article.
Sure I like gloss--but on things that I don't have to examine, such as flower
vases and kitchen appliances.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky nous illumina en ce 2009-02-07 08:03 -->
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
>> viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
>> steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
>> useless.
>
> This is especially true of these new-fangled glossy screens that are all the
> rage with laptops. As if seeing the reflection of my ugly face is an
> "improvement." Between the extremely narrow viewing angle (I can sense a
> mismatch between my eyes just by tilting my head) and the reflection, setting
> the gamma is nearly impossible.
>
> (I'm just as puzzled over the popularity of glossy magazines and of the glossy
> varnishes used on paintings. I just find myself frustrated with the reflection
> of the room and room lighting interfering with the picture or magazine article.
> Sure I like gloss--but on things that I don't have to examine, such as flower
> vases and kitchen appliances.)
>
Yes, gloss on reading material is a PAIN! I prefer my photos printed in low
gloss mate or satin finish.
On CRT monitors, they go to a great lenght to reduce or elliminate the gloss.
You can buy anti-reflection screens that fit over the monitor.
Initialy, LCDs where mate. Now, they stupidly invest a lot of efforts into
making them glossy, and thus, less useable.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A true friend is someone who reaches for your hand and touches your heart.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> This is especially true of these new-fangled glossy screens that are all the
> rage with laptops.
Uh - say no more! I think "yuck!" says it all.
It definitely does improve the image. In a pitch-black room. With your face
painted like a U.S. Marine on his way to a night raid.
Nuff said.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
