>
> Well of course a photo is limited to reflecting 100% of the incident light,
> and a monitor to its maximum brightness, but that wasn't my point.  My point
> was that you shouldn't take into account the eyes processing in your image,
> because then it's not going to look realistic.  You should aim to create an
> image where the relative brightnesses match what is in real life.  You don't
> need to worry about how your eye works, just match real life and it will
> look realistic.
>


You've confused realistic with photo-realistic. If you match a photo it will
look like a photo --- and photos have all the same problems he's listing. Take
a picture of a window on a sunny day, and the window sill, the wall around it,
and anything else will be very dark --- or else everything outside the window
will be over exposed. Real life doesn't have those problems because our eyes
are amazing.

A rendering with logartithmic light recording wouldn't look like a normal photo
--- it would look like a tone-mapped HDR image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mapping . And for preserving detail the way a
memory does, it will be more effective.

The fast solution would be to use megapov to render to HDR and then use 3rd
party tone-mapping software.

-S

Post a reply to this message