clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> >> Maybe because they actually /do/ render identically, provided you 
> >> specify "#version 3.6" to enforce backward compatibility?
> > 
> >   That didn't really answer my question.

> Of course it didn't - if the question is based on false observations and 
> therefore moot, what point would there be in answering it?

  How is it a false observation that I take a scene, render it in 3.6 and
3.7, and I get results which only differ in their gamma setting, and they
do so rather radically?

  Obviously the default gamma settings are different. What has never been
obvious to me is the reason for this.

> That is, unless you are asking why the behavior is different when a 
> #version statement is /not/ present. But in that case, there's no reason 
> to favor compatibility over correctness: 3.6 default gamma handling was 
> simply wrong (because it wasn't any gamma handling at all, thereby 
> producing linear output where other software commonly expects 
> gamma-precorrected files).

  Could you be more precise about this? I still don't understand the reason.
Maybe some concrete examples?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message