Warp schrieb:
>   You are seriously claiming that my display is way, way too bright.
> That really makes me laugh out loud.

Do so if that makes you feel any better.

All I see from my side is that it looks perfect, and I'm quite confident 
that my display calibration goes beautifully well with my operating 
system as well as my image viewing and manipulation software.

>   If anything, my display is too dark. Often images posted by people in
> p.b.images look almost black. When I complain about it, others say they
> can see it just fine.
> 
>   Now you are telling me that I have to calibrate my monitor to be something
> like 25% darker than it already is. Everything in the darker 20% or so
> darkest color space would become completely black and invisible.

Calibration isn't just about turning a monitor brighter or darker. It's 
about adjusting (A) the black point, (B) the white point, (C) the gamma, 
and if your display is particularly bad or you need particularly good 
calibration, even (D) the exact display curve for the individual color 
components.

I don't know what's wrong with your display. Go check it out, use the 
display adjustment tools that came with your graphics card, or google 
for some tools on the net, or whatever. But stop griping about POV-Ray 
being wrong when really you got your image viewing pipeline gamma 
crapped up.

>   Are you also seriously claiming that the starfield image in the pov3.7
> rendered image looks just fine? Does that mean that the original looks like
> a black square with some tiny white pixels here and there in your monitor?

No, I'm not claiming that. You may have noticed that I already mentioned 
that the /input/ file gamma of POV-Ray (both 3.6 and 3.7) is bogus at 
least for some file formats (JPEG is among those). That's where /that/ 
comes from

>> So stop your griping, disengage "demand mode", calibrate your image 
>> viewing pipeline properly, and /then/ come back with any residual problems.
> 
>   I don't appreciate your condescending tone of voice. I'm trying to discuss
> about an issue here.

If you were trying to discuss, then you should be less demaning. All I 
hear is "Please explain this again, please tell me that, please give me 
advice about yonder thing", and griping about me allegedly not 
explaining anything, which I'm trying my best to do though.

>> As for entering gamma-pre-corrected colors into POV-Ray, you might use 
>> something like this:
> 
>>    #macro UnGamma(C)
>>      #local G = 1/2.2;
>>      <pow(C.red,G),pow(C.green,G),pow(C.blue,G),C.filter,C.transmit>
>>    #end
> 
>>    #declare MyGrey = UnGamma(rgb <127,127,127>/255);
> 
>   I don't get it. The image POV-Ray 3.7 is producing by default is way too
> bright, and you want me to brighten the colors even further? (For example
> rgb 0.1 becomes rgb 0.35, rgb 0.5 becomes rgb 0.73.)

Maybe I just got the math wrong way round, huh? Now STFU and do some 
thinking for yourself. If you understand enough about gamma to be so 
sure that POV-Ray 3.7 does it wrong, then you shouldn't have any 
difficulties to figure out how to straighten up the math and turn that 
macro into something useful. I owe you no support on this one, as I'm 
not even remotely responsible for you being unhappy with POV-Ray's gamma 
handling. If you honestly request information and have any hope of me 
being able to provide it, please switch into a different mode showing at 
least a /bit/ of appreciation for me taking time to answer, and a /bit/ 
of willingness to listen and understand, or otherwise don't bother to 
continue asking me about it if you deem my answers worthless.

Post a reply to this message