On 10/16/2016 10:13 PM, 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.
 > ( ) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
 > (X) Thought it was a quiz.
 >
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 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)
 > (X) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
 > ( ) Other: [ I use both. 3.7 for integration with Bishop3d and 
 > 3.7/UberPov for speed.]
 >
 >
 > What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
 > ( ) none
 > ( ) 1
 > ( ) 1.8
 > ( ) 2.2
 > ( ) srgb
 > (X) Other: [1 When I can remember.]
 >
 > 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: [I will feel guilty if I don't.]
 >
 >
 > What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
 > (X) "rgb"
 > ( ) "srgb"
 > ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
 >
 > Why are you using that keyword?
 > (X) 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?
 > (X) "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
 > ( ) "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: [N/A]
 >
 >
 > 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.
 > (X) Do not know - I've not thought about it much.
 >
 > 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.
 > (X) 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.
 > ( ) Do not know - 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.
 > ( ) Do not know - I haven't heard that claim before.
 > (X) Do not know - I haven't made up my mind yet.
 > ( ) Do not know - 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.
 > (X) Do not know - 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: [I've 
not paid much attention, to be honest.]
 > ( ) Do not know - 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: [___]
 > ( ) Do not know - I don't use it.
 >
 >
 > What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
 > POV-Ray 3.7?
 > [___]
 >
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------
 >


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message