OK. Let me try again to get my mind around this.

- the gamma isn't stored as part of most images except png.
- when you talk about gamma correction being already applied to the image,
what you are essentially saying is that the image has been adjusted to
display properly on a 'gamma 2.2' display system  - not that the gamma is
stored with the image file itself.  (My failing this time around is here. I
have been for a long time taking images as "linear images" because there is
no gamma information stored as part of the image)
- the POV-Ray recommendation for all of us is to use assumed_gamma of 1.0
for reasons both internal to the POV-Ray engine and for distribution of
source code to others.
- Using an assumed_gamma of 1.0 will brighten any image used as an image map
set up to display correctly on any system where the true display gamma is >
1.0 and the display gamma is either defaulted or set to the true gamma of
the display system where POV-Ray is run.
- These implications apply to all color maps, and pigment maps that were
derived from images that looked good on  display systems with a gamma > 1.0.
- The most general solution is then to convert all mapped color information
so it will display correctly on a display system with a gamma of 1.0 (what I
understand now Christoph was suggesting), set the display_gamma correctly
for every system and use an assumed_gamma setting of 1.0.
- Many of the default textures supplied with POV-Ray have NOT been modified
to display correctly if using and assumed_gamma of 1.0 and the correct
display_gamma as recommended. Is there a reason the developers could not
supply an updated set of textures either as part of the standard package or
as an adjunct package?

Do I have this right or am I still confused?
Bill

"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns95AECE85E992Eseed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:41a8bf51$1@news.povray.org William Pokorny wrote:
>
> > Cool. So we can be reasonably sure Brigitte's scene file has an
> > assumed_gamma statement other than 1.0 or that her image_map jpg
> > specifies a gamma correction. [...]
>
> No.
>
> If an image looks fine in an imageviewer on a 'gamma 2.2' monitor, you
> can be sure that a gamma correction is applied to it. An image with a
> gamma of 1 would look dark on that monitor.
>
> Now if we take that gamma 2.2 image and use it as an imagemap in POV-Ray
> it will look to bright if the scene is rendered to a gamma of 2.2. The
> gamma correction is now applied twice to the initial image. If the scene
> were renderd to a linear gamma, the image map would look right. Brigitte
> can try this by removing the line 'assumed_gamma = 1' from her scene.
>
> To use images for imagemaps, you have to convert them to a linear gamma
> (gamma=1).
>
>
> Ingo

Post a reply to this message