Discussion:
[Radiance-general] Faulty fisheye HDR, DGP always 1.0
raghuram kalyanam
2018-02-06 13:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Hi All,

I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.

The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link <https://seafile.rlp.net/f/0212995d110648d38032/?dl=1> to the pictures.

It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.

Best Regards,
Raghu
Greg Ward
2018-02-06 16:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi Raghu,

It looks like your HDR image header is missing the necessary view information. Typically, this might be something like:

VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180

for a perspective such as yours. You should be sure that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.

Best,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
raghuram kalyanam
2018-02-06 17:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Greg,

I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.

evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked but it always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are out of bounds).

With out those options evalglare throws an error.

Apart from that

Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?

I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit (especially something to do with over or under exposure).

Best Regards,
Raghu
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours. You should be sure that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link <https://seafile.rlp.net/f/0212995d110648d38032/?dl=1> to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
Greg Ward
2018-02-06 17:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Raghu,

We may need to wait to hear from Jan or someone who understands evalglare better than I do. I don't think there is a problem with your HDR image as you generated it.

-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 9:05:41 AM PST
Hi Greg,
I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.
evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked but it always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are out of bounds).
With out those options evalglare throws an error.
Apart from that
Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?
I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit (especially something to do with over or under exposure).
Best Regards,
Raghu
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours. You should be sure that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
Jan Wienold
2018-02-06 17:24:54 UTC
Permalink
was it taken on mercury ? ;-)

the luminances are far off... it sums up to more than 600000 lux
Jan
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
We may need to wait to hear from Jan or someone who understands
evalglare better than I do.  I don't think there is a problem with
your HDR image as you generated it.
-Greg
*Date: *February 6, 2018 9:05:41 AM PST
*
*
Hi Greg,
I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.
evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked but it
always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are out of bounds).
With out those options evalglare throws an error.
Apart from that
Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?
I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit (especially
something to do with over or under exposure).
Best Regards,
Raghu
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
It looks like your HDR image header is missing the necessary view
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours.  You should be sure that your
fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
*Date: *February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
*
*
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort  using fisheye HDR images.
We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then
converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The
intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and
get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated
fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration
but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is
going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link
<https://seafile.rlp.net/f/0212995d110648d38032/?dl=1> to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID

http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
Gregory J. Ward
2018-02-06 17:46:23 UTC
Permalink
P.S. We should move this discussion to the HDRI mailing list, since it is not a problem with evalglare or any Radiance tools.
Date: February 6, 2018 9:45:19 AM PST
Ha. Jan is right -- the HDR values are way off. I should have looked at the result more closely and noticed that everything was too bright.
I can take your JPEGs and give them to Photosphere or hdrgen, combining them using a generic response function. I cannot solve for the camera response with these inputs, which likely means that the camera is playing around with the tone curve on the different exposures. This is a no-no, and indicates that the camera is probably not suitable for HDR capture. Nevertheless, hdrgen can create something usable that does not agree at all with your result.
By the way, your shortest exposure is still clipping the sun, which means that your DGP won't be accurate for this scene, even if you can get your HDR builder to work unless you can get a shorter exposure.
Cheers,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 9:24:54 AM PST
was it taken on mercury ? ;-)
the luminances are far off... it sums up to more than 600000 lux
Jan
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
We may need to wait to hear from Jan or someone who understands evalglare better than I do. I don't think there is a problem with your HDR image as you generated it.
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 9:05:41 AM PST
Hi Greg,
I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.
evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked but it always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are out of bounds).
With out those options evalglare throws an error.
Apart from that
Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?
I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit (especially something to do with over or under exposure).
Best Regards,
Raghu
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours. You should be sure that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
Jan Wienold
2018-02-06 17:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi Raghu,

it is very simple: your HDR image is simply not correct...

The luminance of your blue sky is more than 400000 cd/m2 and the floor
has more than 200000 cd/m2  you really have a problem in your hdr
generation or calibration... maybe you have used an additional factor
179  in the image???

Of course with these high values DGP gets 1...

good luck
Jan
Post by raghuram kalyanam
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort  using fisheye HDR images. We
generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted
to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use
these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera
used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated
fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I
would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong
with these set of images. Here is the link
<https://seafile.rlp.net/f/0212995d110648d38032/?dl=1> to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID

http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
Raghuram Kalyanam
2018-02-06 17:57:53 UTC
Permalink
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
Radiance-***@radiance-online.org
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
Greg Ward
2018-02-06 18:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi Raghu,

What you say does not jibe with what ximage or Photosphere report when probing your HDR image. The values are all quite high for an interior space. What program are you using to look at your result?

Cheers,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 9:57:53 AM PST
Hi Jan,
We did the calibration and the results of spot luminance measured and calculated from HDR for the light source (calculated with custom made tool ) is very close.
I want to compare the measured Vertical eye illuminance with the one calculated with evalglare, but the results are out of bounds from evalglare, so i couldn't even compare.
Could you suggest me anything else i should be taking care of? Any ideas.
Best Regards,
Raghu
was it taken on mercury ? ;-)
the luminances are far off... it sums up to more than 600000 lux
Jan
Hi Raghu,
We may need to wait to hear from Jan or someone who understands evalglare better than I do. I don't think there is a problem with your HDR image as you generated it.
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 9:05:41 AM PST
Hi Greg,
I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.
evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked but it always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are out of bounds).
With out those options evalglare throws an error.
Apart from that
Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?
I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit (especially something to do with over or under exposure).
Best Regards,
Raghu
Hi Raghu,
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours. You should be sure that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
Jan Wienold
2018-02-06 18:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Hi Raghu,

The spot luminance measurements should ideally be done for several
ranges for each HDR capturing (e.g. one reference area with 100cd/m2,
another one with several thousands) and finally you compare the
illuminance of the image with the measured one and you should reject any
image with a deviation larger than 25% deviation of the illuminance.
With a proper calibration you can be also within 10%.

Definitely the luminances of your image are totally off (=physically
impossible, at least factor  50 for the blue sky) - it has nothing to do
with evalglare.

BTW. evalglare calculates the illuminance also for that image (617414.88
lux) - there is no limit or "out of bounds". Just that your image has
much too high luminances, so you get also an unrealistic illuminance...

It is hard to tell where the problem lies exactly, but definitely it is
caused by your applied  hdr generation process.

Cheers

Jan
Hi Jan,
We did the calibration and the results of spot luminance measured and
calculated from HDR for the light source (calculated with custom made
tool )  is very close.
I want to compare the measured  Vertical eye illuminance with the one
calculated with evalglare, but the results are out of bounds from
evalglare, so i couldn't even compare.
Could you suggest me anything  else i should be taking care of? Any
ideas.
Best Regards,
Raghu
was it taken on mercury ? ;-)
the luminances are far off... it sums up to more than 600000 lux
Jan
Hi Raghu,
We may need to wait to hear from Jan or someone who
understands evalglare better than I do.  I don't think there
is a problem with your HDR image as you generated it.
-Greg
*Date: *February 6, 2018 9:05:41 AM PST
*
*
Hi Greg,
I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.
evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked
but it always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are
out of bounds).
With out those options evalglare throws an error.
Apart from that
Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?
I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit
(especially something to do with over or under exposure).
Best Regards,
Raghu
On Feb 6, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
It looks like your HDR image header is missing the
necessary view information.  Typically, this might be
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours.  You should be sure
that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the
standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
*Date: *February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
*
*
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort  using
fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a
set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to
fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The
intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input
to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is
Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated
from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is
always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would
like to have expert opinion from you people, what
is going wrong with these set of images. Here is
the link
<https://seafile.rlp.net/f/0212995d110648d38032/?dl=1> to
the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID
http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID

http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
raghuram kalyanam
2018-02-14 10:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jan and Greg,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Finally the issue seems to be solved. It is true that the problem is in HDR generation process. We divided each of the pixel values by 179, then HDR seems to be in radiance compatible format. Now the results of these HDR images from Evalglare are more meaningful.

Once again I thank you for your effort.


Best Regards,
Raghu
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
The spot luminance measurements should ideally be done for several ranges for each HDR capturing (e.g. one reference area with 100cd/m2, another one with several thousands) and finally you compare the illuminance of the image with the measured one and you should reject any image with a deviation larger than 25% deviation of the illuminance. With a proper calibration you can be also within 10%.
Definitely the luminances of your image are totally off (=physically impossible, at least factor 50 for the blue sky) - it has nothing to do with evalglare.
BTW. evalglare calculates the illuminance also for that image (617414.88 lux) - there is no limit or "out of bounds". Just that your image has much too high luminances, so you get also an unrealistic illuminance...
It is hard to tell where the problem lies exactly, but definitely it is caused by your applied hdr generation process.
Cheers
Jan
Hi Jan,
We did the calibration and the results of spot luminance measured and calculated from HDR for the light source (calculated with custom made tool ) is very close.
I want to compare the measured Vertical eye illuminance with the one calculated with evalglare, but the results are out of bounds from evalglare, so i couldn't even compare.
Could you suggest me anything else i should be taking care of? Any ideas.
Best Regards,
Raghu
was it taken on mercury ? ;-)
the luminances are far off... it sums up to more than 600000 lux
Jan
Hi Raghu,
We may need to wait to hear from Jan or someone who understands evalglare better than I do. I don't think there is a problem with your HDR image as you generated it.
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 9:05:41 AM PST
Hi Greg,
I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.
evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked but it always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are out of bounds).
With out those options evalglare throws an error.
Apart from that
Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?
I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit (especially something to do with over or under exposure).
Best Regards,
Raghu
Hi Raghu,
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours. You should be sure that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link <https://seafile.rlp.net/f/0212995d110648d38032/?dl=1> to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general <https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general>
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID
http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold <http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold>
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general <https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general>
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID
http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold <http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold>
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
raghuram kalyanam
2018-02-14 10:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jan and Greg,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Finally the issue seems to be solved. It is true that the problem is in HDR generation process. We divided each of the pixel values by 179, then HDR seems to be in radiance compatible format. Now the results of these HDR images from Evalglare are more meaningful.

Once again I thank you for your effort.


Best Regards,
Raghu
Post by Greg Ward
Hi Raghu,
The spot luminance measurements should ideally be done for several ranges for each HDR capturing (e.g. one reference area with 100cd/m2, another one with several thousands) and finally you compare the illuminance of the image with the measured one and you should reject any image with a deviation larger than 25% deviation of the illuminance. With a proper calibration you can be also within 10%.
Definitely the luminances of your image are totally off (=physically impossible, at least factor 50 for the blue sky) - it has nothing to do with evalglare.
BTW. evalglare calculates the illuminance also for that image (617414.88 lux) - there is no limit or "out of bounds". Just that your image has much too high luminances, so you get also an unrealistic illuminance...
It is hard to tell where the problem lies exactly, but definitely it is caused by your applied hdr generation process.
Cheers
Jan
Hi Jan,
We did the calibration and the results of spot luminance measured and calculated from HDR for the light source (calculated with custom made tool ) is very close.
I want to compare the measured Vertical eye illuminance with the one calculated with evalglare, but the results are out of bounds from evalglare, so i couldn't even compare.
Could you suggest me anything else i should be taking care of? Any ideas.
Best Regards,
Raghu
was it taken on mercury ? ;-)
the luminances are far off... it sums up to more than 600000 lux
Jan
Hi Raghu,
We may need to wait to hear from Jan or someone who understands evalglare better than I do. I don't think there is a problem with your HDR image as you generated it.
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 9:05:41 AM PST
Hi Greg,
I added these options while passing to evalglare like below.
evalglare -vta -vh 180 -vv 180 <hdr file>, and it worked but it always gives 1.0 as DGP (even other parameters are out of bounds).
With out those options evalglare throws an error.
Apart from that
Are all the LDR’s provided, valid to combine into HDR?
I doubt if one or more of the LDR’s is the culprit (especially something to do with over or under exposure).
Best Regards,
Raghu
Hi Raghu,
VIEW= -vta -vh 180 -vv 180
for a perspective such as yours. You should be sure that your fisheye mapping corresponds to one of the standard Radiance types.
Best,
-Greg
Date: February 6, 2018 5:21:59 AM PST
Hi All,
I am trying to asses visual discomfort using fisheye HDR images. We generated HDR image from a set of 360 degree LDRs and then converted to fisheye HDR ( using a custom made tools). The intension was to use these Fisheye HDRs as input to Evalglare and get DGP value. The Camera used is Ricoh Theta V 360 degree camera.
The problem I am facing is, the DGP calculated from the generated fisheye HDR with Evalglare is always 1.0. We did the calibration but I would like to have expert opinion from you people, what is going wrong with these set of images. Here is the link <https://seafile.rlp.net/f/0212995d110648d38032/?dl=1> to the pictures.
It would be great if anyone could identify the issue.
Best Regards,
Raghu
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general <https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general>
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID
http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold <http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold>
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general <https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general>
--
Dr.-Ing. Jan Wienold
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
EPFL ENAC IA LIPID
http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold <http://people.epfl.ch/jan.wienold>
LE 1 111 (Office)
Phone +41 21 69 30849
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
https://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
Loading...