Chris Colefax's lens flare macro seems to be broken when used with 
assumed_gamma. I've tried adjusting the colors using a macro I created, 
but the effects are still too intense. Does assumed_gamma affect things 
like filter and transmit as well as color values? What other 
modifications do I need to make to the script (see attached example)?


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'lnsefcts_mod.zip' (9 KB)

Am 13.08.2010 07:26, schrieb SharkD:

> Does assumed_gamma affect things
> like filter and transmit as well as color values?

Strictly speaking, assumed_gamma affects none of these. The only effect 
it has is on the output image (which is why the approach is inadequate, 
and assumed_gamma is deprecated again as of version 3.7).

In this sense, it does indeed affect any and all effects, including 
those generated with filter and/or transmit.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/13/2010 5:43 AM, clipka wrote:
> Strictly speaking, assumed_gamma affects none of these. The only effect
> it has is on the output image (which is why the approach is inadequate,
> and assumed_gamma is deprecated again as of version 3.7).
>
> In this sense, it does indeed affect any and all effects, including
> those generated with filter and/or transmit.

Any way to fix the scene? I get the same broken results in 3.7 as I do 
in 3.6.2 with assumed_gamma set to 1.


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/2010 01:38 AM, SharkD wrote:
> On 8/13/2010 5:43 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, assumed_gamma affects none of these. The only effect
>> it has is on the output image (which is why the approach is inadequate,
>> and assumed_gamma is deprecated again as of version 3.7).
>>
>> In this sense, it does indeed affect any and all effects, including
>> those generated with filter and/or transmit.
> 
> Any way to fix the scene? I get the same broken results in 3.7 as I do
> in 3.6.2 with assumed_gamma set to 1.
> 
> 
IIRC ... using radiosity was the culprit. Could be thinking of something
else, but I suppose turning off rad (if you're using it) is worth a shot.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/2010 06:14 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 08/14/2010 01:38 AM, SharkD wrote:
>> On 8/13/2010 5:43 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> Strictly speaking, assumed_gamma affects none of these. The only effect
>>> it has is on the output image (which is why the approach is inadequate,
>>> and assumed_gamma is deprecated again as of version 3.7).
>>>
>>> In this sense, it does indeed affect any and all effects, including
>>> those generated with filter and/or transmit.
>>
>> Any way to fix the scene? I get the same broken results in 3.7 as I do
>> in 3.6.2 with assumed_gamma set to 1.
>>
>>
> IIRC ... using radiosity was the culprit. Could be thinking of something
> else, but I suppose turning off rad (if you're using it) is worth a shot.

Sheesh ... the more I thought about this, the more it just sounded plain
stupid ... or maybe "Dazed and Confused" (digs out Led Zeppelin CD to
clears out the cobwebs) ... after looking through some old crib notes
seems like I was thinking of "NKFlare" and media :-!

Post a reply to this message

On 8/15/2010 11:05 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> IIRC ... using radiosity was the culprit. Could be thinking of something
>> else, but I suppose turning off rad (if you're using it) is worth a shot.
>
> Sheesh ... the more I thought about this, the more it just sounded plain
> stupid ... or maybe "Dazed and Confused" (digs out Led Zeppelin CD to
> clears out the cobwebs) ... after looking through some old crib notes
> seems like I was thinking of "NKFlare" and media :-!

I attached the problem files. Rad is off.


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

On 8/13/2010 1:26 AM, SharkD wrote:
> Chris Colefax's lens flare macro seems to be broken when used with
> assumed_gamma. I've tried adjusting the colors using a macro I created,
> but the effects are still too intense. Does assumed_gamma affect things
> like filter and transmit as well as color values? What other
> modifications do I need to make to the script (see attached example)?
>
>

On a hunch I tried changing the transmit using the following macro, but 
the results weren't correct.


#macro gamma_transmit_adjust(in_transmit)
   #local out_gamma = 1/2.2;
   pow(in_transmit, out_gamma)
#end


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.08.2010 01:24, schrieb SharkD:

> On a hunch I tried changing the transmit using the following macro, but
> the results weren't correct.

Do you indeed mean "not correct", or rather "not as expected"?

Maybe the lens flare macro wasn't designed to be physically correct, but 
just to "look good" (in POV-Ray 3.6 without "assumed_gamma", i.e. in a 
physically /incorrect/ renderer); in that case fixing the lens flare 
macro might be non-trivial.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/20/2010 6:23 PM, clipka wrote:
> Maybe the lens flare macro wasn't designed to be physically correct, but
> just to "look good" (in POV-Ray 3.6 without "assumed_gamma", i.e. in a
> physically /incorrect/ renderer); in that case fixing the lens flare
> macro might be non-trivial.

Yeah, that's kind of the point of this thread. ;)


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message