 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
> No. "assumed_gamma 1" uses the Display_Gamma value, which should be the
> gamma of whatever device you are going to display the image on, and
> defaults to 1.8 on Macs and 2.2 on PCs. The default (with no
> assumed_gamma specified) is to do no gamma correction at all. You could
> also set both assumed_gamma and Display_Gamma to 1, but that's more work
> than necessary.
In my experience the default assumed_gamma changes the input colors
(eg. the ones in an image map). By specifying assumed_gamma 1 you get
POV-Ray to show the same colors as you get by viewing the image map
with an image viewer (which does not perform any kind of gamma correction).
The default assumed_gamma makes the image map to look way too light.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40470a9c@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> In my experience the default assumed_gamma changes the input colors
> (eg. the ones in an image map). By specifying assumed_gamma 1 you get
> POV-Ray to show the same colors as you get by viewing the image map
> with an image viewer (which does not perform any kind of gamma correction).
> The default assumed_gamma makes the image map to look way too light.
This shouldn't happen. Without assumed_gamma specified, no gamma
correction should be done. It is documented as working this way in both
the manual and the source code. opts.GammaFactor is initialized to
something other than 1, but that shouldn't matter as long as the
GAMMA_CORRECT flag in opts.Options isn't set.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> This shouldn't happen.
Indeed, I can't reproduce the effect anymore.
I wonder why is that. I suppose there hasn't been any change regarding
to this from 3.5->3.6... Strange.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
