On 11-9-2011 15:00, Warp wrote:
>    This topic has been discussed in great length already, but perhaps I could
> try a different approach at explaining why assumed_gamma 1.0 ought to produce
> a physically more accurate result (as well as the practical complications that
> using it causes when designing scenes).
>

Yes, I am aware of this discussion, and I apologize for bringing this up 
again :-) It is a complex matter not immediately understood by the lay 
person.

Your explanation is very clear and answers a number of puzzles I 
obviously had about my scene setup. Thanks indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message