> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> (*) 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?
> (*) 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
> (*) 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.
> (*) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> ( ) "rgb"
> (*) "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.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended format.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> 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?
> ( ) "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: [None of them frequently]
>
> 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.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( ) 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?
> (*) 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.
> ( ) 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?
> (*) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) 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: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.

> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?

"assumed_gamma" is still a bit unintuitive IMO in what it actually does. 
I'm pretty sure if you took a person who knew a lot about gamma handling 
but had never used POV before, and asked them what they thought it did, 
they would most likely get it wrong.

Post a reply to this message