Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately 
with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change 
some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are 
notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'n.jpg' (317 KB)

Preview of image 'n.jpg'

On 20/03/2018 07:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately 
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change 
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are 
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
> 

Much better to my eyes.
Although I think you cheated a bit by changing the camera angle. 
Although that could come under "changing insights and skills".

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 9:07, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/03/2018 07:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
>> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this 
>> lately with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to 
>> change some elements but the comparison over ten years of using 
>> POV-Ray are notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>>
> 
> Much better to my eyes.
> Although I think you cheated a bit by changing the camera angle. 
> Although that could come under "changing insights and skills".
> 

The latest is true as I now used DrJohn's "falling building syndrome" 
macro here, and de-rotated the camera. However, my ultimate objective 
was not to recreate the scene exactly. Evolution was allowed.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20/03/2018 08:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 20-3-2018 9:07, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/03/2018 07:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
>>> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this 
>>> lately with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to 
>>> change some elements but the comparison over ten years of using 
>>> POV-Ray are notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>>>
>>
>> Much better to my eyes.
>> Although I think you cheated a bit by changing the camera angle. 
>> Although that could come under "changing insights and skills".
>>
> 
> The latest is true as I now used DrJohn's "falling building syndrome" 
> macro here, and de-rotated the camera. However, my ultimate objective 
> was not to recreate the scene exactly. Evolution was allowed.
> 

Or do you mean intelligent re-design. ;-)
No matter what a great improvement.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Obviously, I forgot to mention:

- in 2008, the scene was rendered with MegaPOV version 1.21
- in 2018, the scene was rendered with UberPOV version 
1.37.1.1-alpha.8871946.msvc14.win64


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 9:40, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/03/2018 08:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 20-3-2018 9:07, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 20/03/2018 07:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
>>>> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this 
>>>> lately with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want 
>>>> to change some elements but the comparison over ten years of using 
>>>> POV-Ray are notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new 
>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Much better to my eyes.
>>> Although I think you cheated a bit by changing the camera angle. 
>>> Although that could come under "changing insights and skills".
>>>
>>
>> The latest is true as I now used DrJohn's "falling building syndrome" 
>> macro here, and de-rotated the camera. However, my ultimate objective 
>> was not to recreate the scene exactly. Evolution was allowed.
>>
> 
> Or do you mean intelligent re-design. ;-)
> No matter what a great improvement.
> 

LOL Good one!


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20/03/2018 08:44, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> LOL Good one!

:-D

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote on 20/03/2018 08:43:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately 
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change 
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are 
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
> 
Now the sculptures are... alive!

Paolo

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 13:00, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote on 20/03/2018 08:43:
>> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
>> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this 
>> lately with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to 
>> change some elements but the comparison over ten years of using 
>> POV-Ray are notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>>
> Now the sculptures are... alive!
> 

Yeah... the figures were never intended as sculptures but as children 
playing. :-/

It is an old memory from my own childhood in fact.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>
> --
> Thomas


Well done Thomas,

but by changing the camera point of view, most of the nice birds disappeared...
What I want to know is how you did your grass and plants - really nice.

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

I see you've made everyone's scowl more intense in the update :)

Interesting to look at the vegetation - both very realistic, but I actually
think I prefer the original in this regard.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> It is an old memory from my own childhood in fact.

And then, after watching Thomas and the gang at play, Jules Verne used the event
as the inspiration to write _20,000 Leagues Under The Sea_ - in 1870.


:D   :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 23:25, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> 
>> It is an old memory from my own childhood in fact.
> 
> And then, after watching Thomas and the gang at play, Jules Verne used the event
> as the inspiration to write _20,000 Leagues Under The Sea_ - in 1870.
> 

Entirely correct! And published in.... exactly. ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 16:12, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Well done Thomas,

Thanks you indeed Norbert.

> 
> but by changing the camera point of view, most of the nice birds disappeared...
> What I want to know is how you did your grass and plants - really nice.
> 

The fault is DrJohn's macro but I deemed the loss minor to the gain of a 
more realistic scene. I could change the flight of the birds of course. 
Incidentally, those were built in Moray using blobs.

The plants are meshes I converted from Poser while the flowers were 
provided by PlantStudio.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 19:58, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I see you've made everyone's scowl more intense in the update :)

The scowl was already there in the original and I don't like it. I can 
do better. Probably will be smoothed out in the next version
> 
> Interesting to look at the vegetation - both very realistic, but I actually
> think I prefer the original in this regard.
> 

Somehow I have to agree with you. Maybe something I can mend too...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/20/2018 um 8:43 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately 
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change 
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are 
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
> 

Sorry, but overall I do prefer the original.
The new version seems quite over-saturated, especially the vegetation, 
the bricks and the wheel.
While the new camera view is nice it has the unfortunate side effect 
that two birds of the flock are very close to the top border and this 
hurts the composition.

And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses 
newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile. 
Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management 
enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while, 
only IE and Edge don't - but who uses them anyway?
Every contemporary mid-range monitor has a wider color gamut than sRGB, 
the one I use even wider than Adobe RGB - and I can assure you, the 
difference is NOT subtle.
When I want to make sure to view an image as intended I have to do a few 
additional steps and as I'm lazy I usually don't care. As color 
management only kicks in for images with ICC profiles I have to save the 
image to my local disk and check *if* it contains a profile and if not 
use my own image viewer that correctly assumes for images without 
profile to be in sRGB and transforms them correctly to my viewing device 
profile.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 21/03/2018 10:52, Ive wrote:
> 
> And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses 
> newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.

How do I do that? Does it apply to PovRay generated png's?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21-3-2018 11:52, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/20/2018 um 8:43 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
>> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this 
>> lately with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to 
>> change some elements but the comparison over ten years of using 
>> POV-Ray are notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>>
> 
> Sorry, but overall I do prefer the original.
> The new version seems quite over-saturated, especially the vegetation, 
> the bricks and the wheel.

I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks. 
However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?

It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.

> While the new camera view is nice it has the unfortunate side effect 
> that two birds of the flock are very close to the top border and this 
> hurts the composition.

Yes. You are perfectly right. Another reason to revisit the birds.

> 
> And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses 
> newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile. 
> Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management 
> enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while, 
> only IE and Edge don't - but who uses them anyway?
> Every contemporary mid-range monitor has a wider color gamut than sRGB, 
> the one I use even wider than Adobe RGB - and I can assure you, the 
> difference is NOT subtle.
> When I want to make sure to view an image as intended I have to do a few 
> additional steps and as I'm lazy I usually don't care. As color 
> management only kicks in for images with ICC profiles I have to save the 
> image to my local disk and check *if* it contains a profile and if not 
> use my own image viewer that correctly assumes for images without 
> profile to be in sRGB and transforms them correctly to my viewing device 
> profile.
> 

Hmmm... I don't know how to achieve that...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 03/20/2018 03:43 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.

It looks better in most respects.  I see 3 areas that seem 
over-corrected, though:

The corrosion on the plaque is overdone.  It's not that it's 
unrealistic, but that the text is mostly illegible.

The vegetation, while in isolation it looks better than the original, is 
distracting from the composition (for that very reason).

The new skin tones look overly saturated, although they are better than 
in the original.

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/21/2018 um 13:11 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks. 
> However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?
> 
Gamma! In the ancient time of MegaPOV and its unawareness of gamma 
handling you as the user had to tweak scene colors and lighting to 
compensate for the resulting inconsistency. Now with proper gamma 
handling but some of these *tweaks* making it over results in 
over-saturation and slightly hue shifts - as to be expected.

> It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.
>
Yes, I agree - saturation is certainly also a matter of taste - 
personally I can live with under-saturation better than with 
over-saturation.

> 
> Hmmm... I don't know how to achieve that...
> 

Contemporary versions of Photoshop and Lightroom do this auto-magical, 
older version if you told them to do so and I'm under the assumption 
this is also true for other software like Gimp or Paintshop. I do not 
use the latter so maybe I'm wrong?

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/21/2018 um 12:30 schrieb Stephen:
> On 21/03/2018 10:52, Ive wrote:
>>
>> And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses 
>> newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.
> 
> How do I do that? 

See my reply to Thomas.

> Does it apply to PovRay generated png's?
> 
PNG's are a very sad story and the ones generated by POV-Ray are no 
exception. For short: there is absolutely no way you can predict what 
anybody else will see when you post a PNG on the web. And there is no 
way to work around this.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.03.2018 um 11:52 schrieb Ive:

> And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses
> newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.
> Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management
> enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while,
[...]
> As color
> management only kicks in for images with ICC profiles I have to save the
> image to my local disk and check *if* it contains a profile and if not
> use my own image viewer that correctly assumes for images without
> profile to be in sRGB and transforms them correctly to my viewing device
> profile.

I'd call that a bullshitty implementation then. After all, the W3C
officially recommends sRGB for all web content, so that's what browsers
should default to if an ICC profile is not embedded.

Also, a lot of images posted here are rendered with POV-Ray, which
currently does not embed an ICC profile. So to comply with your request,
each and every image would have to be post-processed before posting,
which I consider unreasonable.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.03.2018 um 14:14 schrieb Ive:

> PNG's are a very sad story and the ones generated by POV-Ray are no
> exception. For short: there is absolutely no way you can predict what
> anybody else will see when you post a PNG on the web. And there is no
> way to work around this.

... which, I'd like to emphasize, is not POV-Ray's fault: If output is
set to `File_Gamma=sRGB` (the default), POV-Ray embeds an sRGB chunk,
which according to the PNG standard should communicate plain as hell
that the colour space is supposed to be sRGB.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.03.2018 um 13:11 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks.
> However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?
> 
> It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.

Those are Poser figures, so I presume their materials also use Poser
texture images.

MegaPOV 1.2.1 - being based on POV-Ray v3.6 - completely ignored gamma
for input images; if you already used `assumed_gamma 1.0` back then - as
every good sailor should - MegaPOV 1.2.1 / POV-Ray v3.6 would
erroneously presume the input images to match that gamma.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-3-2018 14:07, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/21/2018 um 13:11 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the 
>> bricks. However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come 
>> from?
>>
> Gamma! In the ancient time of MegaPOV and its unawareness of gamma 
> handling you as the user had to tweak scene colors and lighting to 
> compensate for the resulting inconsistency. Now with proper gamma 
> handling but some of these *tweaks* making it over results in 
> over-saturation and slightly hue shifts - as to be expected.
> 
>> It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.
>>
> Yes, I agree - saturation is certainly also a matter of taste - 
> personally I can live with under-saturation better than with 
> over-saturation.

Then the short answer is clear: My latest scene version using 
exclusively sRGB gamma all through (and gamma 1.0 where necessary) the 
apparent over-saturation is solely due to the original hue of the used 
image_maps. I can live with that although I prefer a slightly 
less-saturated version; it might me make to consider to tweak the 
original images to a "lighter", "flatter" hue, or to apply a colour 
transformation within POV-Ray.

> 
>>
>> Hmmm... I don't know how to achieve that...
>>
> 
> Contemporary versions of Photoshop and Lightroom do this auto-magical, 
> older version if you told them to do so and I'm under the assumption 
> this is also true for other software like Gimp or Paintshop. I do not 
> use the latter so maybe I'm wrong?
> 

I am using Gimp and have not (yet) found thematter. Does your IC do it 
by the way?

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 22-3-2018 3:34, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.03.2018 um 13:11 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
>> I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks.
>> However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?
>>
>> It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.
> 
> Those are Poser figures, so I presume their materials also use Poser
> texture images.

Yes indeed. They render much better with the latest version of POV-Ray 
or UberPOV.

> 
> MegaPOV 1.2.1 - being based on POV-Ray v3.6 - completely ignored gamma
> for input images; if you already used `assumed_gamma 1.0` back then - as
> every good sailor should - MegaPOV 1.2.1 / POV-Ray v3.6 would
> erroneously presume the input images to match that gamma.
> 

I did and it did. :_)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/22/2018 um 3:22 schrieb clipka:
> I'd call that a bullshitty implementation then. After all, the W3C
> officially recommends sRGB for all web content, so that's what browsers
> should default to if an ICC profile is not embedded.
> 
> Also, a lot of images posted here are rendered with POV-Ray, which
> currently does not embed an ICC profile. So to comply with your request,
> each and every image would have to be post-processed before posting,
> which I consider unreasonable.
> 

You don't get my point. In practice nowadays nobody cares what the W3C 
did recommend a long time ago when monitors where CRT's and smartphones 
where not invented yet.
The color space of the majority of viewing devices currently used is not 
even close to sRGB and with upcoming 4k displays and even HDR displays 
for the consumer market they get even farer away. And as I mentioned 
before, this does not make just a subtle difference.
This was also not a personal request of mine (I know about the problems 
very well and can work around it if I want to), it is an advice for 
everybody who cares about what others will see if they look at an image 
one might have created with a lot of effort.
So what you call a bullshitty implementation is what I call a necessary 
step in the right direction.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/22/2018 um 8:47 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
> Does your IC do it 
> by the way?
> 

Ouch! You just ruined my day and almost my marriage as I promised my 
wife to do some cleanup in the garden this morning.

Anyway, I just realized that the IC version on my webpage is 8 years old 
(doesn't time fly by?) and therefor completely outdated. I just did put 
up a more resent 64-bit version of IC that supports ICC profiles for 
writing TIFF and JPEG files.

And BTW when I tried to maintain my website I noticed that FireFTP (the 
Firefox plugin I was using for this purpose since a decade) does not 
work anymore as Mozilla has changed its plugin policy and so had to 
spend hours to find some replacement that at least works somehow in the 
way I like it.
This also reminded me that I wanted to change my side from http to https 
... oh my, so many things to do and so less time ...

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 22-3-2018 12:47, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/22/2018 um 8:47 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>
>> Does your IC do it by the way?
>>
> 
> Ouch! You just ruined my day and almost my marriage as I promised my 
> wife to do some cleanup in the garden this morning.

Oh, the garden can wait. IC is much more important than either marriage 
or gardens, isn't it! ;-)

> 
> Anyway, I just realized that the IC version on my webpage is 8 years old 
> (doesn't time fly by?) and therefor completely outdated. I just did put 
> up a more resent 64-bit version of IC that supports ICC profiles for 
> writing TIFF and JPEG files.
> 
> And BTW when I tried to maintain my website I noticed that FireFTP (the 
> Firefox plugin I was using for this purpose since a decade) does not 
> work anymore as Mozilla has changed its plugin policy and so had to 
> spend hours to find some replacement that at least works somehow in the 
> way I like it.
> This also reminded me that I wanted to change my side from http to https 
> ... oh my, so many things to do and so less time ...
> 

Well, I shall expect a new version by tomorrow then... ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/22/2018 um 13:07 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Oh, the garden can wait. IC is much more important than either marriage 
> or gardens, isn't it! ;-)
> 
Yeah, sure!

> 
> Well, I shall expect a new version by tomorrow then... ;-)
> 
You misunderstood. The maintained site is already up and running and IC 
1.1.7 64-bit ready to download.


-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 22-3-2018 13:50, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/22/2018 um 13:07 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Oh, the garden can wait. IC is much more important than either 
>> marriage or gardens, isn't it! ;-)
>>
> Yeah, sure!
> 
>>
>> Well, I shall expect a new version by tomorrow then... ;-)
>>
> You misunderstood. The maintained site is already up and running and IC 
> 1.1.7 64-bit ready to download.
> 
> 

Wow. I call that faster than light! Thanks a lot!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 21.03.2018 um 11:52 schrieb Ive:
>
> > And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses
> > newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.
> > Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management
> > enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while,
> [...]
>
> ...the W3C officially recommends sRGB for all web content, so that's what
> browsers should default to if an ICC profile is not embedded.
>
> Also, a lot of images posted here are rendered with POV-Ray, which
> currently does not embed an ICC profile. So to comply with your request,
> each and every image would have to be post-processed before posting,
> which I consider unreasonable.
> [...]

I'm coming late to this conversation; sorry.

This surprising situation looks like a very big 'can of worms' that needs
further discussion, maybe in a separate newsgroup thread. It goes to the heart
of what we can expect our images to look like on other computers/monitors.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-3-2018 8:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately 
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change 
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are 
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
> 

Following the comments, I re-assessed different elements, in particular 
de-saturating some of the image_maps used. I also gave dynamic t-shirts 
to the girls instead of the conforming ones in the original.

While re-processing through Poser, changing the facial expressions of 
the girls, the flag was changed. The letter 'N' may not really be 
visible any more but this version clears the head of Cathy which I find 
better.

As far as I am concerned, my final version.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'n_2018_05.png' (799 KB)

Preview of image 'n_2018_05.png'

Thomas de Groot wrote on 22/04/2018 09:36:
> Following the comments, I re-assessed different elements, in particular 
> de-saturating some of the image_maps used. I also gave dynamic t-shirts 
> to the girls instead of the conforming ones in the original.
> 
> While re-processing through Poser, changing the facial expressions of 
> the girls, the flag was changed. The letter 'N' may not really be 
> visible any more but this version clears the head of Cathy which I find 
> better.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, my final version.
> 

The expression are less solemn, but the t-shirts are really well done.
A nice version.
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2018 15:57, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> 
> The expression are less solemn, but the t-shirts are really well done.
> A nice version.
> Paolo


Thanks Paolo. I changed the expressions mainly because they were at the 
limit of what Poser can do correctly. I preferred to backtrack a bit.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message