On 16-10-2016 23:13, clipka wrote:
> *NOTE: Please also reply if you don't care!*
>
> *NOTE: This thread is not intended for discussion!*
>
> Since the topic of gamma handling has recently been brought to the dev
> team's attention again, I'd like to get a clearer picture of how POV-Ray
> users have come to feel about the issue. Even if you don't care, please
> answer at least the following question:
>
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> (x) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for deciding to provide some feedback on gamma; please take
> the time to answer the following questions (feel free to tick more than
> one box per question, and elaborate where you think it might be helpful)
> -- or just ignore them and write some prose on what's really on your
> mind regarding the topic.
>
> Bystanders, please refrain from replying to people's feedback; we can
> have a discussion in a separate thread.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
> (x) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (x) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> (x) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> (x) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> ( ) "rgb"
> (x) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> (x) I think it is the recommended format.
> (x) Other: I think it is more accurate for self-generated colours/textures.
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
> (x) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (x) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using those other features?
> ( ) I like to toy around with them.
> ( ) I like the flexibility they provide.
> ( ) I need them to handle special cases.
> ( ) They don't default to the settings I typically want.
> (x) Other: for input images, I think of height_field functions where it is
essential.
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (x) I really like it.
> ( ) I think it's mostly ok.
> ( ) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (x) It works like a charm for me.
> ( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
> ( ) I'm still learning to deal with its quirks.
> ( ) Its quirks still keep getting in my way.
> ( ) It just doesn't work for me at all.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
>
> What's your opinion on the claim that "assumed_gamma 1.0" gives more
> realistic render results than other settings?
> ( ) Yes, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is more realistic.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma" has no effect on realism.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is actually less realistic.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> (x) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> ( ) People say so, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) The docs imply it, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
> ( ) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> ( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't have a clear opinion yet.
>
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 1.0" in POV-Ray 3.7, compared to
> the same setting 3.6?
> (x) It is an overall improvement.
> (x) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 2.2" (or any non-1.0 setting) in
> POV-Ray 3.7, compared to the same setting 3.6?
> ( ) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> (x) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> Following the hot debates in the past, it seems we are now in more quiet waters.
Still, I think there is some confusion remaining about what gamma 
handling is about and its relation to the physical world. People tend to 
tweak gamma settings in order to get a "more pleasing" image but forget 
that this often results in darker or lighter images on other systems. Is 
there a need for more/better documentation on the subject? I don't 
really know. Just my half cent.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message