First of all, my deep felt appreciation for all the hard work done so far on 
version 3.7. Thanks to everybody involved who has offered up a lot of free 
time to bring us this little jewel.

A question now.
assumed_gamma is back again, but I am unsure about what its setting should 
be. Assuming that my monitor screen is calibrated to sRGB, that my 
display_gamma is also set to sRGB, my feeling is that assumed_gamma should 
be 1, or should it be sRGB too?

Thanks for lighting my darkness :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 03.01.11 10:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> First of all, my deep felt appreciation for all the hard work done so far on
> version 3.7. Thanks to everybody involved who has offered up a lot of free
> time to bring us this little jewel.
>
> A question now.
> assumed_gamma is back again, but I am unsure about what its setting should
> be. Assuming that my monitor screen is calibrated to sRGB, that my
> display_gamma is also set to sRGB, my feeling is that assumed_gamma should
> be 1, or should it be sRGB too?
>
> Thanks for lighting my darkness :-)

Simple: Use your scenes as before. We will provide a better way in a later 
release. As for srgb, it is the reason why assumed gamma is back. There is 
no internal consensus yet what it should be like and how it should be 
interpreted.

     Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.01.2011 10:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> First of all, my deep felt appreciation for all the hard work done so far on
> version 3.7. Thanks to everybody involved who has offered up a lot of free
> time to bring us this little jewel.
>
> A question now.
> assumed_gamma is back again, but I am unsure about what its setting should
> be. Assuming that my monitor screen is calibrated to sRGB, that my
> display_gamma is also set to sRGB, my feeling is that assumed_gamma should
> be 1, or should it be sRGB too?
>
> Thanks for lighting my darkness :-)

For physically accurate renders, go about it as you did with the later 
betas, except that you add "assumed_gamma 1.0" to your scene.

Post a reply to this message

Thank you both, gentlemen! That answered fully my question, and was 
corroborated too by the gamma showcase scene (as it should be, of course 
:-) ).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I should maybe add that - in the gamma showcase scene - assumed_gamma is set 
to 2.2. Imo, this should better be the default 1.0, in order to avoid user 
confusion :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 01/04/2011 04:03 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I should maybe add that - in the gamma showcase scene - assumed_gamma is set 
> to 2.2. Imo, this should better be the default 1.0, in order to avoid user 
> confusion :-)
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
i thought it was that way because it's using a gamma corrected scheme
... setting it to 1.0 mimics the more comfortable "old" way that
everyone was used to before all the beta changes. this topic has
certainly generated a lot of controversy hasn't it? it's pretty safe to
say that it's a moving target at the moment.

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.01.2011 11:52, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> On 01/04/2011 04:03 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I should maybe add that - in the gamma showcase scene - assumed_gamma is set
>> to 2.2. Imo, this should better be the default 1.0, in order to avoid user
>> confusion :-)

*WHAT?!*

(...hurries off, checks code repository...)

*AAAAARGH!*

> i thought it was that way because it's using a gamma corrected scheme
> ... setting it to 1.0 mimics the more comfortable "old" way that
> everyone was used to before all the beta changes. this topic has

I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.

I'll fix it for the next release, but I guess you owe me one more ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.

not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
out)

Post a reply to this message

On 04/01/2011 5:06 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
>> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
>
> not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
> just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
> out)

This corner is getting very crowded, now ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/04/2011 01:15 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 5:06 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 01/04/2011 11:34 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> I'm sorry to say this Jim, but it's exactly the other way round.
>>
>> not surprised ... when the discussion got to be more like argument I
>> just quit reading (goes off into the corner and lets the experts sort it
>> out)
> 
> This corner is getting very crowded, now ;-)
> 

haha ... lets chat amongst ourselves then ... wonders why assumed_gamma
srgb gives me what I want! setting it to 1.0 makes it WAY to light ...
i'm gonna standy by how my display is setup ... interestingly enough
Jamies scene with the tree (plant) in the corner looked just fine!

Post a reply to this message