> On 12/09/2011 20:55, Warp wrote:
>> The major problem I see with assumed_gamma 1.0 is that designing textures
>> becomes more complicated, because textures are usually designed by how
>> they
>> should look rather than what their absolute irradiance values are.
>>
>> If you are only specifying individual colors, then using 'srgb' takes
>> care of that. However, patterns present a problem. Usually you want
>> patterns to interpolate linearly from one color to another (with what
>> I mean that the interpolation should *look* linear).

Fun fact: With assumed_gamma 2.2, visually pleasing /brightness/ 
gradients are easy to accomplish, but /color/ gradients may be 
excessively difficult to get right (depending on the colors involved), 
while those are a piece of cake with assumed_gamma 1.0.

As an example, try the following gradient:

         [0.0 color srgb <1,0,0> ]
         [0.5 color srgb <0,0.8,0> ]
         [1.0 color srgb <1,0,0> ]

With assumed_gamma 2.2, the transition features a significant ditch in 
brightness between the two colors. Not so with assumed_gamma 1.0, which 
maintains roughly the same brightness level throughout the whole transition.

So to make it easy to achieve visually pleasing gradients for both 
brightness /and/ color gradients, a new feature needs to be added to 
POV-Ray anyway, to get the best of both worlds.

Post a reply to this message