XYZ images, alternate displays ... conjecture

Discuss stuff not about Indigo.
User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

XYZ images, alternate displays ... conjecture

Post by dougal2 » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:21 pm

I've had a thought that as indigo supports peak emitters (specify wavelength of the light), wouldn't it be cool if there was a display device that could actually emit all the way up to UltraViolet, so as to make full use of this feature ?

I'm currently rendering an image in UV (peak 450nm, width 25nm), and it's coming out in patches on saturated blue and magenta on my screen :(
I'd love to be able to see it in all it's violet glory.

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:25 am

uhm...
you wouldn't see UV, would you? xD

User avatar
CTZn
Posts: 7240
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by CTZn » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:48 am

Hi Dougal ! Did you try to play with </large_mutation_prob> and <max_change> ? Well, it's only a suggestion, I've never tried the bee gaze...
obsolete asset

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:49 am

Kram1032 wrote:uhm...
you wouldn't see UV, would you? xD
well strictly, no - but near UV gives everything a cool fluorescent purple glow

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:09 am

OH!

Flourescence...
Not supported by Indigo - nor any other unbiased renderer, I know ;)
as well as phosphorescence and such stuff ;)

- would be cool, if it was supported, though :D *hint*

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:03 am

that's not really what I meant, but yeah, that would be very cool.

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:27 am

isn't the fluorescence effect with UV light indeed fluorescence? - if so, you wont get the effect, you want ;)

and as long as it's very noisy, you wont be able to see, if it works as expected, either ;)

y'know what?

post two (or more) pics:
1) How it currently looks
2) Which effect you want

That would make it easier ;)

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:50 am

no, i'm not trying to render the effect - i was just musing about how it'd be cool if there was a monitor that could emit UV light. (or - having just read wikipedia - a device that was a much larger Gamut)

As I understand it, an IGI image which is stored in XYZ colour space is capable of holding colour information in the UV (and at the opposite end, IR) region, and currently there's no real way to use this information - when converting to RGB it is essentially lost.

Anyone - feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:45 pm

As I understood it, XYZ = RGB in float value, which means, you can save HDR renders....

you can have colours, that are brighter than the monitor can show (sun and lightsources, for example ;))

Noone would want an UV-monitor: NOT GOOD FOR YOUR EYES ;) - and IR also wouldn't be too good: it's warm - in summer, TOO warm ;)

I mean, ok, if you want to barbecue your eyes.... xD

User avatar
dougal2
Developer
Posts: 2532
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am
Location: South London

Post by dougal2 » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:07 am

Kram1032 wrote:Noone would want an UV-monitor: NOT GOOD FOR YOUR EYES ;) - and IR also wouldn't be too good: it's warm - in summer, TOO warm ;)
this is, perhaps, the truth of it

User avatar
Maluminas
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:06 am
Location: Canada>Quebec>Montreal

Post by Maluminas » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:46 am

With protective eyewear you could get a nice tan while working on the computer! And perhaps a melanoma too... lol

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:50 am

lol, yeah, in a very unhealthy non-protective way^^

If you've sun-studio-tan, that doesn't protect you at all from real-sun-UV as real-sun- or, even better, shadow-tan would do ^^ - there seem to be other factors, besides tan

User avatar
oodmb
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:39 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by oodmb » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:46 am

450 isnt realy technicaly uv. is on the verge which means its still visable and doesnt cause cancer. sunburn rays start at UVB which is 320 and cancer rays are UVC which is 290. i once attempted to build a tea nitrogen laser which shot rays in the 345-430 range and the light from that would have still been partialy vissable
a shiny monkey is a happy monkey

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:41 am

tea nitrogen??? O.o

User avatar
oodmb
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:39 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by oodmb » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:19 am

it uses the nitrogen in the atmosphere as the lasing medium rather than compresed pure nitrogen. its less efficient, but far less complicated to build
a shiny monkey is a happy monkey

Post Reply
16 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests