Friday 2010-10-15 Dev. update and Discussion

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by major_setback

There will be no sign posts, they were taken down during the war. You will have to ask locals which road takes you back to the airfield.
Maybe this could be a future mod - selecting a message to ask the way and getting an answer from them ....Farmer: 'carry on for 3 miles, then turn left at the crossroads'.

We will need a compass in the car!

No! Just a list of pubs between departure point and destination!

"Drive down thar , passed the 'Fiddling Monkey' upto the 'Prince o'wales', carry on for a mile or two t' the 'Rampant Otter', then it's but a mile or two t' the RAF Base!"

[ChrisDNT]

+++++++++++++++++++++++
wow guys, you really need to get you're monitors calibrated.
Nealy all of furbs photographs need some adjustments.
some even have a purple magenta cast LOL.

Certaily teh Isle of Wight one is all wrong

Reread oleg's comments about colours and perception.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

It's right, some of theses pictures have too vivid colors (but from the right shades of green), but on the other hand, the colors of the screenshots have become, this week, from too much vivid to too much pastel, and still with a wrong palette for the described area.

Btw, any medium capturing photons, either human eyes or a camera sensor, gives by definition its own rendering of reality (just compare for instance the differences between the Canon rendering and the Nikon rendering, or even more impressive the differences between the Bayer technology and the Foveon technology). At the times of the film technology, the rendering between Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64 were different too, so were different the renderings between Velvia, Sensia and Provia.

That's to say that absolute veracity of a rendering is by definition a non-sense question (any medium is an aspect of the reality, not the reality), but what can be nevertheless attained is a common accurate probability of what is rendered. As an example, among photographers, it was commonly accepted that Provia gave a more realistic rendering of the reality than Velvia. But was Provia rendering the reality in an absolute exact way ? of course not.

[Hatch]

Of course but the brain behind it does all the interpretation.
And has to understand what it's seeing.

How many people just rely on postprocessing to get the right colour balance and only get the diff between a bayer sensor and a foveon when held side by side?

In most of the screenshots the woodland is rather sparse.
And the gamma a bit low (for my taste anyhow)

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

+++++++++++++++++++++++
wow guys, you really need to get you're monitors calibrated.
Nealy all of furbs photographs need some adjustments.
some even have a purple magenta cast LOL.

Certaily teh Isle of Wight one is all wrong

Reread oleg's comments about colours and perception.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

It's right, some of theses pictures have too vivid colors (but from the right shades of green), but on the other hand, the colors of the screenshots have become, this week, from too much vivid to too much pastel, and still with a wrong palette for the described area.

Btw, any medium capturing photons, either human eyes or a camera sensor, gives by definition its own rendering of reality (just compare for instance the differences between the Canon rendering and the Nikon rendering, or even more impressive the differences between the Bayer technology and the Foveon technology). At the times of the film technology, the rendering between Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64 were different too, so were different the renderings between Velvia, Sensia and Provia.

That's to say that absolute veracity of a rendering is by definition a non-sense question (any medium is an aspect of the reality, not the reality), but what can be nevertheless attained is a common accurate probability of what is rendered. As an example, among photographers, it was commonly accepted that Provia gave a more realistic rendering of the reality than Velvia. But was Provia rendering the reality in an absolute exact way ? of course not.

Nice comment. And right comment. I would add diffent compacts from which most of the shots we ussually see looking in exif of the shot

[swiss]

.