On 2016-10-16 05:13 PM (-4), clipka wrote:
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> (X) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
> (X) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> (X) 1
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> (X) I think it gives the most accurate results.
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> (X) "rgb"

I do occasionally use "srgb," though.

> Why are you using that keyword?
> (X) I find it easiest to work with.
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> (X) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> (X) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> (X) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (X) "gamma" setting for input images
> (X) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
> (*) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> (*) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "gamma" setting for input images
> (*) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps

* Not really frequent.

"gamma" setting for input images is something I dearly wished for in 
POV-Ray 3.6, but the new image_map default in POV-Ray 3.7 ironically 
obviates the need!  (I searched all my scene files, and not once have I 
ever used it.)  It still seems like a good idea to have this feature 
available, though.

> Why are you using those other features?
> (X) I like the flexibility they provide.
> (X) I need them to handle special cases.
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (X) I really like it.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (X) It works like a charm for me.
>
> What's your opinion on the claim that "assumed_gamma 1.0" gives more
> realistic render results than other settings?
> (X) Yes, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is more realistic.
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> (X) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 1.0" in POV-Ray 3.7, compared to
> the same setting 3.6?
> (X) It seems to work just the same.
>
> 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?
> (X) It seems to work just the same.

Post a reply to this message