 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.12.2010 20:31, schrieb Kenneth:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> The following images show the Cornell University's famous "Cornell Box"
>> reference scene for 3D rendering...
>>
>> (1) as a photograph taken from the "real thing" at Cornell University,
>> using sophisticated calibrated equipment, at a wavelength of 600nm; the
>> original is an OpenEXR image; I applied linear brightness adjustment for
>> more contrast and converted to PNG for convenience, which shouldn't hurt
>> its fitness for serving as a reference image...
>
> I hope I'm not muddying the issue (or doing something stupid at my end), but
> your posted Cornell .png photograph is definitely the worst of the lot, when
> viewed on-line in the latest Firefox browser (v3.6.13): low contrast and darker
> than any of the POV-Ray images. Perhaps it needs tweaking in some further way,
> to make it a good comparison image? (I'm *guessing* that it was meant to compare
> more favorably with the gamma 1.0 image, or vice versa.)
Its dark appearance in FF may be due to the fact that the images are
presented on a white background, and the "real thing" has much more
black border around it; especially with the preview this messes a lot
with the image's appearance.
As for having low contrast, that's the point I'm making: The photograph
/is/ a physically accurate image, so if there's any tweaking to do to
make it look like the POV-Ray renders, then the tweaking needs to be
done on the POV-Ray side - this comparatively low contrast is physically
/correct/.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht
news:4d110528$1@news.povray.org...
> Its dark appearance in FF may be due to the fact that the images are
> presented on a white background, and the "real thing" has much more black
> border around it; especially with the preview this messes a lot with the
> image's appearance.
Idem for me as for Kenneth, also in Firefox. It is not the white background.
Even the ceiling light in POV-Ray is pure white, compared to muddy grey in
the photograph.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/22/2010 09:58 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Idem for me as for Kenneth, also in Firefox. It is not the white background.
> Even the ceiling light in POV-Ray is pure white, compared to muddy grey in
> the photograph.
There indeed seems to be something wrong with the original photograph,
as posted. One would indeed assume the ceiling light should be pure
white in the image (I'm assuming in the original HDRI image it's "whiter
than white").
Exactly what kind of adjustment was made to the original data in order
to get the posted "photograph"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> (2) as a POV-Ray 3.7 render using geometry, surface reflectance and
> light source data as published by the Cornell University
> (http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/box/data.html)...
There's a rather strange typo in that link (in the original post, that is!) When
viewed *there* (in Firefox), it begins with http://www://www.graphics... But as
you can see above, it suddenly appears correct in this reply! (I did no editing
to it here; that's the way it now shows up.) WTF??? I wouldn't be surprised if
it reverts to the error again, when I post this. No way to know!
I think my computer is caught in a quantum superposition state-----
Anyway, here's the correct link (hopefully, *it* will show up without error)...
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/box/data.html
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> ...I wouldn't be surprised if
> it reverts to the error again, when I post this...
And so it did! That's just...ODD. (You'll have to take my word for it
that the link appeared *correct* during the writing of my reply.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> On 12/22/2010 09:58 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > Idem for me as for Kenneth, also in Firefox. It is not the white background.
> > Even the ceiling light in POV-Ray is pure white, compared to muddy grey in
> > the photograph.
>
> There indeed seems to be something wrong with the original photograph,
> as posted. One would indeed assume the ceiling light should be pure
> white in the image (I'm assuming in the original HDRI image it's "whiter
> than white").
>
> Exactly what kind of adjustment was made to the original data in order
> to get the posted "photograph"?
The original was taken with a CCD, so the captured response is linear. Taking
the 600nm OpenEXR version and converting it to a 2.2 gamma gives a realistic
image to my eyes. If the original was a photograph, then you'd have a non-linear
tone curve to deal with (exponential, but with rolloff on the top and bottom)
Cheers,
Edouard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.12.2010 20:55, schrieb Kenneth:
> "Kenneth"<kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> ...I wouldn't be surprised if
>> it reverts to the error again, when I post this...
>
> And so it did! That's just...ODD. (You'll have to take my word for it
> that the link appeared *correct* during the writing of my reply.)
And it does indeed appear correct here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.12.2010 22:06, schrieb Edouard:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> On 12/22/2010 09:58 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Idem for me as for Kenneth, also in Firefox. It is not the white background.
>>> Even the ceiling light in POV-Ray is pure white, compared to muddy grey in
>>> the photograph.
>>
>> There indeed seems to be something wrong with the original photograph,
>> as posted. One would indeed assume the ceiling light should be pure
>> white in the image (I'm assuming in the original HDRI image it's "whiter
>> than white").
>>
>> Exactly what kind of adjustment was made to the original data in order
>> to get the posted "photograph"?
The original image was much dimmer (half the physical brightness as the
PNG I posted). I guess the dim overhead light is due to reaching the
CCD's dynamic range limit, and the image was linearly adjusted in
brightness to represent absolute light intensity in some nice SI unit.
> The original was taken with a CCD, so the captured response is linear. Taking
> the 600nm OpenEXR version and converting it to a 2.2 gamma gives a realistic
> image to my eyes. If the original was a photograph, then you'd have a non-linear
> tone curve to deal with (exponential, but with rolloff on the top and bottom)
The original is an OpenEXR, and therefore by definition linear. A proper
image viewer should do the gamma adjustment for your display
automatically, so you shouldn't do any manual gamma correction on the
image, otherwise you'll just screw it up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clipka wrote:
> >> There indeed seems to be something wrong with the original photograph,
> >> as posted. One would indeed assume the ceiling light should be pure
> >> white in the image (I'm assuming in the original HDRI image it's "whiter
> >> than white").
> >>
> >> Exactly what kind of adjustment was made to the original data in order
> >> to get the posted "photograph"?
>
> The original image was much dimmer (half the physical brightness as the
> PNG I posted). I guess the dim overhead light is due to reaching the
> CCD's dynamic range limit, and the image was linearly adjusted in
> brightness to represent absolute light intensity in some nice SI unit.
The light at the top is clipped by exposure on the CCD I believe. The correct
adjustment is probably to linearly increase the brightness till the light hit
the ceiling for a non-HDR image format (e.g. 255 in people 8 bit minds, although
of course you posted a 16 bit PNG).
I converted the original OpenEXR image to a 16 bit image in linear space, and
did the adjustments, then adjusted the gamma 1.0 image you posted (after
converting it to linear space again) to match the brightness, and finally saved
them both as an sRGB JPEG.
Looks about perfect to me.
> > The original was taken with a CCD, so the captured response is linear. Taking
> > the 600nm OpenEXR version and converting it to a 2.2 gamma gives a realistic
> > image to my eyes. If the original was a photograph, then you'd have a non-linear
> > tone curve to deal with (exponential, but with rolloff on the top and bottom)
>
> The original is an OpenEXR, and therefore by definition linear. A proper
> image viewer should do the gamma adjustment for your display
> automatically, so you shouldn't do any manual gamma correction on the
> image, otherwise you'll just screw it up.
Oh, I see what you mean. Photoshop was doing the right thing; I should just
learn to trust the 'shop.
Cheers,
Edouard.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ccd-vs-pov.jpg' (41 KB)
Preview of image 'ccd-vs-pov.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/23/2010 09:33 PM, Edouard wrote:
> Looks about perfect to me.
The perspective is stronger in the povray image. If that's fixed, then
it would be perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
