Huh? ;)

This kind of thing is what I have trouble with. It's simply a two way
street it seems and they always seem to turn out to be one way streets.
Metaphoricly typing of course...

I think I understand your meaning here, that the gamma is getting done
per processed pixel and yet the following pixels are not done so until
after they are sampled along with the previous pixels, right? Maybe not
right?
Anyway, I am thoroughly confused now.


"John M. Dlugosz" wrote:
> 
> Isn't manipulation of pixels supposed to be done on a linear scale, i.e.
> =before= gamma correction for the monitor?  The comments in the source even
> say "this is done exactly once per pixel displayed/saved".  But the
> supersampling gamma corrects each value individually before averaging them
> together.  I'm confused as to the meaning here.
> 
> From the docs, it's clear that the intent is for all new scenes to have
> "assumed gamma" of 1 ("strongly recomended" it explains, "since that's the
> way light works in the real world", and this is adjusted for the display
> gamma when it is output.
> 
> So shouldn't all manipulation be done on the computed values (in the
> assumed_gamma), and then the final pixel value be adjusted once?  Doing the
> gamma correction first will give different results for different display
> gamma values, which is exactly what the docs say is =not= supposed to
> happen.
> 
> --John

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message