Am 18.12.2012 04:39, schrieb Ive:

> But more seriously, I was always puzzled about the lack of interest in
> well calibrated viewing devices that seems so common among people within
> these newsgroups.

I guess it's mainly underestimation (due to lack of personal experience) 
what a difference a good and well-calibrated display can make.

The half-hearted support for gamma handling in older versions of POV-Ray 
might also have contributed in the past.


 > On the contrary things seem even worse now as in former times every
> calibrated mid-class CRT was already better than any contemporary
> high-end TFT.

I suspect that's not true - if only because the CRTs of former times 
were typically connected to the graphics adapter via some analog 
interface and were therefore subject to both static and dynamic signal 
distortions; suffered from both static and dynamic geometric 
distortions; and came with ergonomic problems due to inherent flickering 
and buildup of static electricity.

Of course all these problems were less prominent in mid-class CRTs than 
in low-end ones, but I suspect that it would have taken high-end 
equipment to reduce them to entirely unproblematic levels.

(BTW, just to avoid any misunderstanding: When I hear "high-end TFT" I 
think "graphics enthusiast's dream", not "gamer's dream" or some such. 
You know, the stuff that comes with an elaborate individual factory 
calibration report included.)

Post a reply to this message

On 17-12-2012 18:17, Ive wrote:
> Note that I'm not concerned about photorealism, it is the inconsistence
> that bothers me.
> Given the shadow on the back wall gap and the sharp shadow line in the
> face the scene suggest to be lit by direct sunlight. But in this case
> the dynamic range between the lit/unlit parts of the face is way too
> low. The shadowed face parts are also too bright compared to the
> shadowed wall gap. In other words, the shadows in the face are way too
> bright - or the lit parts way too dark, depending on the exposure
> setting of your camera.

OK, fair enough. I know that this is a simple scene setting for testing 
the look of clothing in particular, and /not/ intended for fashion 
photography outdoors ;-) So the scene should not be judged in that 
light. In the present case, the contrast with the dark cloth is too 
revealing apparently.

> The only way to make the face look as soft within direct sunlight would
> be by adding a lot of reflectors as done e.g. for outdoor fashion
> photography, but in this case the veil would also look very different.
> As the clothing is now it looks more like within an old master painting.
> This inconsistence creates this copy'n'paste impression for me.
> I think your setup for testing poser people/clothing is a bit
> unfortunate. Personally I do use two different setups for *quick*
> indoor/outdoor testing and textures are *good* when they pass both tests.

In time, I shall look into a better setup for the testing ground, but I 
must say that I am not as demanding as you are on this matter ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 18-12-2012 1:18, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I, too, see the effect Christian and Ive talk about; it looks exactly like bad
> Photoshopping.  (And like Ive, I must stress that photorealism is not the
> issue.)  My first instinct was that the contrast on the face isn't deep enough;
> but I know /just/ enough about color matters to consider the factors that I
> don't know enough about.  I must defer to Ive on these matters.  (If he's good
> enough for Jaime, he's good enough for me.)

Ive is the authority indeed and I shall consider some improvements to 
the test setup following his comments, but as I answered to his post, I 
am not as demanding and am still fairly satisfied with this (test) 
image. Later scene building with this figure will show how it reacts to 
the real environment. In the mean time, I go on tweaking and experimenting.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 17-12-2012 20:49, Stephen wrote:

> Anyone know of a good second hand eye shop? Because it looks good to me.
> Although, maybe a fill in light on his RHS (left as you look at it)
> might help.
>

I would need one too (an eye shop) although the eyes still function to 
satisfaction. ;-)

One day I shall improve the scene setup (low priority) to make it 
Ive-proof ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 04:12 PM, Stephen wrote:

> >
> > I am not a betting man but I bet you a Mars bar that he has. ;-)
> >
> LOL ... raise ya a Snickers ;-)

Nope! The steaks are too high. I think that I will cash im my chips (fries to
you. ;-) )

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 17-12-2012 20:49, Stephen wrote:
>
> > Anyone know of a good second hand eye shop? Because it looks good to me.
> > Although, maybe a fill in light on his RHS (left as you look at it)
> > might help.
> >
>
> I would need one too (an eye shop) although the eyes still function to
> satisfaction. ;-)
>

Aye! Mine could focus quicker for my comfort.

> One day I shall improve the scene setup (low priority) to make it
> Ive-proof ;-)
>

Let me know when that happens. ;-)

Seriously, I look beyond the image and see the intent. Maybe because that in
real life you have to interpret what your eyes see to make sense to your brain,
until you no longer look at it. Or maybe it is the result of my misspent youth.
(Ooo! pretty colors)

Post a reply to this message

On 18-12-2012 14:31, Stephen wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 17-12-2012 20:49, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone know of a good second hand eye shop? Because it looks good to me.
>>> Although, maybe a fill in light on his RHS (left as you look at it)
>>> might help.
>>>
>>
>> I would need one too (an eye shop) although the eyes still function to
>> satisfaction. ;-)
>>
>
> Aye! Mine could focus quicker for my comfort.

I know what you mean.

>
>> One day I shall improve the scene setup (low priority) to make it
>> Ive-proof ;-)
>>
>
> Let me know when that happens. ;-)

I'll do my best ;-)

>
> Seriously, I look beyond the image and see the intent. Maybe because that in
> real life you have to interpret what your eyes see to make sense to your brain,
> until you no longer look at it. Or maybe it is the result of my misspent youth.
> (Ooo! pretty colors)

Yep, so true! And also in the good old days of B/W photography is my 
experience. Oh well, I just learned successfully to turn a pair of boots 
I took from Apollo Maximus into conforming ones for Ryan, by using 
Poser's Setup Room. I am well pleased. A few little glitches remain but 
overall the work was simple. Most work was in Silo where I had to adapt 
the geometry to the new hierarchy.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.12.2012 05:50, schrieb clipka:
> Am 18.12.2012 04:39, schrieb Ive:
>
>> But more seriously, I was always puzzled about the lack of interest in
>> well calibrated viewing devices that seems so common among people within
>> these newsgroups.
>
> I guess it's mainly underestimation (due to lack of personal experience)
> what a difference a good and well-calibrated display can make.
>
> The half-hearted support for gamma handling in older versions of POV-Ray
> might also have contributed in the past.
>
>
>  > On the contrary things seem even worse now as in former times every
>> calibrated mid-class CRT was already better than any contemporary
>> high-end TFT.
>
> I suspect that's not true - if only because the CRTs of former times
> were typically connected to the graphics adapter via some analog
> interface and were therefore subject to both static and dynamic signal
> distortions; suffered from both static and dynamic geometric
> distortions; and came with ergonomic problems due to inherent flickering
> and buildup of static electricity.
>

By writing *calibrated* mid-class CRT, I was referring to professional 
graphics usage and there was a Mac or PC equipped with a Matrox graphics 
card (and its superior analog signal quality but lack of 3d 
acceleration) de-facto standard.
My own CRT did run at a 1600x1200 resolution with 100Hz frequency. It 
had minor divergence problems at the corner pixels but was able to 
actually show pitch black pixels (and off course all shades of near 
black) where my current TFT shows something my wife would call medium 
anthracite.
This is what I really do miss. And - as it is winter again - it's 
ability to heat the whole room. Not so fortunate during summer and one 
of the reasons I had to dismiss it ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message