Don't think I'm going to be going to that assumed_gamma 1.0 after all.
From what I've been seeing it doesn't conform too well at all for
anything I've tried yet. All I ever get is a washed out image, loss of
contrast. I think my monitor is setup pretty much as should be. I don't
even have it too bright or low contrasted to begin with because I like a
darker screen. I don't have very bright room light most of the time is
why.
I just don't get this Display_Gamma=2.2 in the Povray.ini coupled with a
suggested assumed_gamma 1.0 more than ever. If one light_source of color
rgb 1 (White) is used it might pass with the lowering of all other color
values as Jerry Anning pointed out. But what's the point there? Those
are POV-Ray colors and textures which came with the program, makes no
sense they would not be right already (note: I'm never complaining, even
if I appear to be. Just so everyone knows).
When using a couple or more lights at a reduced color value for each, to
add up to a reasonable amount of light_source color, there still is the
low contrast look. And if ambient were reduced next to nothing it might
work out once again, but ambient is a necessary evil for certain
situations.
Anyhow, as far as I can tell if assumed_gamma is used at all it simply
cannot be 1.0, only 1.6 or above to maybe 2.6 is my range of light to
dark (or low contrast to high) while keeping a good image with realism.
So I am totally failing to find the reasoning or true answer to the
gamma question. I would bet that I may have tried as the DOC said at
first to use those suggested values and came up with the equaling the
two instead for similar results to the older, pre-gamma corrected
scenes. I'm not going to question the fact that there is probably a well
thought out reasoning to what the POV-Team decided upon but it won't
work for me.
I checked using Display_Gamma=1.0 and 2.2, assumed_gamma 2.2 and 1.0 (PC
here, can you tell yet?) and only the both set to 2.2 does best in my
eyes. Or as you might say it possibly would with all rgb values brought
down by a fixable factor. This is of course the questionable part: why
it wouldn't be the same rendered image as what older versions rendered.
Think that is why I must have figured it as a ratio to each setting, ie.
1.0 being both 2.2 and any other deviation from each other higher or
lower than 1.0 making it a relative scale type thing, not an actual
value to use. Okay, how wrong am I? Doesn't matter, I have to use the
values that work not anything else anyhow... Just please don't take my
POV-Ray render license away.
Well, I better stop writing, turning into a short story here.
Oh and thanks Ken for the refresher on gamma in the DOC, I needed that.
Understand it yet is another matter, thanks though.


"John M. Dlugosz" wrote:
> 
> I'll update my writeup as more develops.  Let me know what comes of it for
> you.
> 
> --John

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message