 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbrain com> wrote:
> BTW, I know this sounds like a newbie question but: has anyone got a nice
> way to round or bevel the edges on those letters?
I don't think this is quite what you're looking for, but it does round the edges
of text. It would make a smoothly rounded edge if an infinite number of objects
were used. It can be adapted to make concave or other curved edges. It distorts
the outline of the letters, it's incredibly inefficient and can't realistically
make smoothly rounded edges. But I'm sharing it because maybe someone will have
an idea of how to improve it. I think that to do this right would require adding
support for rounding the edges of fonts to the POV-Ray code itself which is far
beyond my ability.
This "X" consists of 361 copies of the "X" object and took almost two hours to
render using version 3.7 with four microprocessors and radiosity recursion_limit
1. Each "layer" of the object is colored differently for demonstration purposes.
The source is posted in the text scene files group.
Regards,
Dave Blandston
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rounded edges.png' (149 KB)
Preview of image 'rounded edges.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dave Blandston" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I don't think this is quite what you're looking for, but it does round the edges
> of text. It would make a smoothly rounded edge...
Completely off-topic: Your .png image is showing up with different gamma
'values' depending if I look at it's 'preview' image here in the newsgroups vs.
clicking on the image link, to bring it up as a stand-alone image. (I'm using
the latest version of Firefox as my web browser, in both cases.) The preview has
much darker shadows, and more contrast overall. Anyway, I've never seen this
behavior here in the newsgroups before. Kind of a mystery! I can't tell which is
the 'correct' image. Makes me wonder if the newsgroup 'software' is altering the
gamma values of .png images when displaying a preview. OR, whether Firefox
itself has a gamma flaw.
Odd!
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth wrote:
> Completely off-topic: Your .png image is showing up with different gamma
> 'values' depending if I look at it's 'preview' image here in the newsgroups vs.
> clicking on the image link, to bring it up as a stand-alone image. (I'm using
> the latest version of Firefox as my web browser, in both cases.) The preview has
> much darker shadows, and more contrast overall. Anyway, I've never seen this
> behavior here in the newsgroups before. Kind of a mystery! I can't tell which is
> the 'correct' image. Makes me wonder if the newsgroup 'software' is altering the
> gamma values of .png images when displaying a preview. OR, whether Firefox
> itself has a gamma flaw.
>
Same here ... I recently switched to Thunderbird for news reader and I
see the same behavior when viewing image in-line (through news reader).
When I bring up the image as an attachment and view it with either eog
(default image viewer on gnome) or save the file and view with gimp they
look the same. Firefox/Thunderbird problem? They DO have common roots
coming from mozilla.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Completely off-topic: Your .png image is showing up with different gamma
> 'values' depending if I look at it's 'preview' image here in the newsgroups vs.
> clicking on the image link, to bring it up as a stand-alone image. (I'm using
> the latest version of Firefox as my web browser, in both cases.) The preview has
> much darker shadows, and more contrast overall. Anyway, I've never seen this
> behavior here in the newsgroups before. Kind of a mystery! I can't tell which is
> the 'correct' image. Makes me wonder if the newsgroup 'software' is altering the
> gamma values of .png images when displaying a preview. OR, whether Firefox
> itself has a gamma flaw.
>
> Odd!
>
> Ken
It's probably something I'm doing wrong - I get an error message about gamma
settings every time I render a scene. One of these days I'll have to figure out
the new settings... I've also noticed that sometimes when I select a POV-Ray
v3.7 generated .png image as a desktop wallpaper for Windows XP the little
preview shows a really washed-out looking image, but then the actual desktop
image looks right.
Regards,
Dave Blandston
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.04.2010 10:55, schrieb Dave Blandston:
>> Completely off-topic: Your .png image is showing up with different gamma
>> 'values' depending if I look at it's 'preview' image here in the newsgroups vs.
>> clicking on the image link, to bring it up as a stand-alone image. (I'm using
>> the latest version of Firefox as my web browser, in both cases.) The preview has
>> much darker shadows, and more contrast overall. Anyway, I've never seen this
>> behavior here in the newsgroups before. Kind of a mystery! I can't tell which is
>> the 'correct' image. Makes me wonder if the newsgroup 'software' is altering the
>> gamma values of .png images when displaying a preview. OR, whether Firefox
>> itself has a gamma flaw.
>
> It's probably something I'm doing wrong - I get an error message about gamma
> settings every time I render a scene. One of these days I'll have to figure out
> the new settings... I've also noticed that sometimes when I select a POV-Ray
> v3.7 generated .png image as a desktop wallpaper for Windows XP the little
> preview shows a really washed-out looking image, but then the actual desktop
> image looks right.
Your .png file has a gAMA chunk indicating that you set File_Gamma=1.0,
or are using #version 3.6 and assumed_gamma 2.2 (I'm presuming here that
you're using POV-Ray 3.7); while this is not wrong /per se/, it has some
drawbacks:
- You're not taking advantage of /gamma encoding/; as a consequence, at
a depth of 8 bits per color channel you're risking noticeable color
banding in dark areas.
- The images are not inherently /gamma pre-corrected/ for a typical
computer; as a consequence, software that doesn't evaluate the gAMA
chunk will present the midtones /darker/ than they should be (except on
systems calibrated for a non-typical gamma, such as linear gamma).
With POV-Ray 3.7, it is strongly recommended to work without
assumed_gamma, and set File_Gamma=2.2, for any image (or scene, for that
matter) you plan to share with others.
That said, it seems to me that Firefox is doing it right (at least on
systems with a display subsystem gamma of around 2.2): In the case of
this particular file, it is the more washed-out version that is right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> That said, it seems to me that Firefox is doing it right (at least on
> systems with a display subsystem gamma of around 2.2): In the case of
> this particular file, it is the more washed-out version that is right.
I suspected so (although it's kind of hard to tell which one Dave Blandston
intended for us to see; neither one looks *quite* right.) So I've posted a
little comp of both of the images that I see on my own system (both as viewed in
Firefox)--done as simple screen captures, and saved as a jpeg file, which
doesn't --or *shouldn't*--have any embedded gamma. (My apologies to Tek for
co-opting his original message thread with an off-topic image of my own.) This
way, Dave can see what I see. The tonal values of this jpeg image 'match' those
of the original images I saw when using Firefox, on my Windows XP system. In
other words, on my own system everything matches up visually.
The mystery that remains is why the newsgroup 'preview' image should look
different than the downloaded image--since both are being viewed in the same
software at my end (Firefox.) Given that Dave's use of assumed_gamma in POV v3.7
may be wrong, how would that make a difference? The conclusion I reach--in my
best Sherlock Holmes fashion ;-) -- is that POV's newsgroup software (whatever
it is) may not be handling/presenting v3.7 gamma-encoded .png images
correctly(?) in the preview.
Or maybe it's some crazy Windows-specific problem. Anyway, just some thoughts.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'png_viewing_test.jpg' (91 KB)
Preview of image 'png_viewing_test.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Your .png file has a gAMA chunk indicating that you set File_Gamma=1.0,
> or are using #version 3.6 and assumed_gamma 2.2 (I'm presuming here that
> you're using POV-Ray 3.7); while this is not wrong /per se/, it has some
> drawbacks:
>
> - You're not taking advantage of /gamma encoding/; as a consequence, at
> a depth of 8 bits per color channel you're risking noticeable color
> banding in dark areas.
>
> - The images are not inherently /gamma pre-corrected/ for a typical
> computer; as a consequence, software that doesn't evaluate the gAMA
> chunk will present the midtones /darker/ than they should be (except on
> systems calibrated for a non-typical gamma, such as linear gamma).
>
> With POV-Ray 3.7, it is strongly recommended to work without
> assumed_gamma, and set File_Gamma=2.2, for any image (or scene, for that
> matter) you plan to share with others.
>
> That said, it seems to me that Firefox is doing it right (at least on
> systems with a display subsystem gamma of around 2.2): In the case of
> this particular file, it is the more washed-out version that is right.
Hi,
I'm using version 3.7 on Windows XP. The darker image is closer to what I
intended (although it's a little too dark due to ineptness on my part). To
correct the gamma issues, I followed the instructions on the Beta page and added
the lines
display_gamma=1.0
file_gamma=1.0
to the povray.ini file, and removed "assumed_gamma 2.2" from the scene file.
That seemed to produce the desired result in the render window and the output
file. I know this isn't right either, since you're recommending setting
file_gamma to 2.2. However, when I set file_gamma to 2.2 the image appears
washed-out and I can't seem to fix that by adjusting the scene lighting. Maybe
my video card is set wrong or something.
On my computer:
Version 3.7
no assumed_gamma
display_gamma=1.0
file_gamma=1.0
seems to produce the same result as
Version 3.6:
assumed_gamma 2.2
If I'm not understanding something or doing something wrong I apologize.
Regards,
Dave Blandston
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi!
I've been following the discussions on how to bevel te edges of text.
Since I've been playing in my head with this kind of stuff for other
purposes (but never got to actualy make the macro for real), this seemed
to be a good moment to sit down and try the concept.
As a reult, i now have a macro that makes a beveled shape, following a
path defined by a spline. This way one could make letters (anyone has a
libray of splines that are shaped like letters?).
Thing to do: make the width of the shape variable using another spline.
This is needed to make thicker sections of letters.
Don't know if it's usefull, just wanted to share it.
Attached is an image of an A (2 splines) and a Beta (1 ugly spline).
Comments and questions are welcome as usual!
JWV
Tek schreef:
> Some postcards from across the universe!
>
> Obviously I don't have enough images yet, so I've duplicated some, but I
> thought people might be interested in what I'm working on :)
>
> BTW, I know this sounds like a newbie question but: has anyone got a nice
> way to round or bevel the edges on those letters?
>
> For my purposes it would suffice to have a mesh of a nicely rounded font,
> but ideally i'd like an all-pov solution which could handle strings of text.
> The only option I can think of is to intersect sheared version of the text
> object to get a bevel... in fact that would work quite well! I'll do that if
> nobody has a better solution!
>
> Comments/criticism appreciated :)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bevel.jpg' (70 KB)
Preview of image 'bevel.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 14.04.2010 05:22, schrieb Dave Blandston:
> On my computer:
>
> Version 3.7
> no assumed_gamma
> display_gamma=1.0
> file_gamma=1.0
>
> seems to produce the same result as
>
> Version 3.6:
> assumed_gamma 2.2
Yes, that's to be expected.
Note however that, technically speaking, working with assumed_gamma 2.2
/is/ wrong already, so it's no surprise you need to mess up your
settings to get the expected results.
The officially /right/ way to address the washed-out appearance you see
in 3.7 is to fix all the colors you use in your existing scenes: Raise
all RGB color values (but not transmit or filter) to the power of 2.2
and you should be quite ok with display_gamma=2.2 and file_gamma=2.2 in
3.7. Where that still doesn't match your expectations, you're actually
expecting physically unrealistic results. (For that "X", for instance,
you may need to reduce radiosity brightness to get what you expect.)
For backwards compatibility, using a "#version 3.6" statement and
"assumed_gamma 2.2" should also give you the same results as 3.6, but
this is not recommended for new scenes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 14.04.2010 11:18, schrieb JWV:
> As a reult, i now have a macro that makes a beveled shape, following a
> path defined by a spline. This way one could make letters (anyone has a
> libray of splines that are shaped like letters?).
How did you do this?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
