Am 11.09.2011 10:14, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

>> If you want the color<213, 127, 79>/255 to correspond to the on-screen
>> pixel value<213, 127, 79>, you'll have to use an assumed_gamma of 2.2
>> (which is the default).
>>
Nonsense!

> Display_Gamma = sRGB
> global_settings {assumed_gamma 1.0}
>
Yes. Thats definitely how it should be when you are aiming for a 
(photo)realistic render.

> I understand from the documentation that this last one should always be
> kept at 1 "for maximum realism" which is what I want. Using 2.2 or srgb
> instead make the colors darker, but if the image is loaded in Gimp for
> example, the colors do not match up with the initial ones. Neither with
> assumed_gamma 1 I must add. So, fundamentally, something is changed in
> between...
>
A precise description what these color patches are actually representing 
would be helpful. Currently I have no idea what they are and how you 
would expect them to look like.

> I give up. The matter is really going way beyond my understanding... :-(

Don't do this. Actually this isn't a complicated matter. What makes it 
appear complicated is the amount of wrong informations and even worse 
half true statements as sadly frequently given within this newsgroup.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message