Page 1 of 2

XYZ images, alternate displays ... conjecture

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:21 pm
by dougal2
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.

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:25 am
by Kram1032
uhm...
you wouldn't see UV, would you? xD

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:48 am
by CTZn
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...

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:49 am
by dougal2
Kram1032 wrote:uhm...
you wouldn't see UV, would you? xD
well strictly, no - but near UV gives everything a cool fluorescent purple glow

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:09 am
by Kram1032
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*

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:03 am
by dougal2
that's not really what I meant, but yeah, that would be very cool.

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:27 am
by Kram1032
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 ;)

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:50 am
by dougal2
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.

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:45 pm
by Kram1032
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

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:07 am
by dougal2
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

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:46 am
by Maluminas
With protective eyewear you could get a nice tan while working on the computer! And perhaps a melanoma too... lol

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:50 am
by Kram1032
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

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:46 am
by oodmb
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

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:41 am
by Kram1032
tea nitrogen??? O.o

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:19 am
by oodmb
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