clipka wrote:

>>   color rgbt! <0.5,0.5,0.5,0.2>
> 
> That would be ambiguous in cases like
> 
>     #declare MyBoolVariable = false;
>     color rgbt!MyBoolVariable

Hmm, I hope it reports an error either way ;)

> Having the gamma adjustment tied to the color keywords also has its 
> drawbacks

Yes, but gamma is inherently related to defining a color and
not a vector. I find it confusing to add the gamma correction
prefix to the "vector part" of the syntax (not sure how the
parser views it technically but to the user it looks like
color rgb takes a vector argument).

>>> If we'd go for such a syntax, it might also be prudent to merge the 
>>> "file_gamma" and "color_gamma" into a single "gamma" statement.
>>
>> Then "input_gamma" would probably be more distinct to avoid
>> confusion with display gamma.
> 
> I'm not happy with that term, as to me it would apply only to files. 

Well, I was thinking from the renderers point of view. Among other
things it gets parsed pigments as input some of which may stem from
image_maps and some with actual color definitions. How about
"pigment_gamma" or similar? I assume an image which is used
for texture maps or normals should not be gamma corrected.

Post a reply to this message