 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
> (X) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> ( ) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> (X) Other: [1.7]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> (X) I find it easiest to work with.
> (X) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> ( ) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> (X) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> 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?
> ( ) "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?
> ( ) "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.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( ) I really like it.
> (X) I think it's mostly ok.
> ( ) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (X) It works like a charm for me.
> ( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
> ( ) 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.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> (X) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> (X) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> ( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
> ( ) Dunno - 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: [___]
> (X) Dunno - 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: [___]
> (X) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/16/2016 5:13 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.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (x) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> 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.
> (x) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> (x) "rgb" for lights
> (x) "srgb" for pigments
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> (x) I think it is the recommended format.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( ) "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?
> ( ) "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.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( ) I really like it.
> ( ) I think it's mostly ok.
> (x) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> 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.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> (x) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> (x) 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.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> (x) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [I have to switch all
the pigments srgb too. Even then, old scenes don't always look the same in 3.7.]
> ( ) Dunno - 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: [___]
> (x) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> (x) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (x) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> 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.
> (x) Other: [clipka authoritatively said to, and not doing so makes me a bad POV
user]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> (x) "rgb"
> (x) "srgb"
> (x) Other (e.g. a macro): [ HSV using the colors.inc HSVtoRGB macro]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> (x) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended format.
> (x) Other: [ sRGB gives colors more closely matching those I've scanned or sampled]
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( ) "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?
> ( ) "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.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
I think a tutorial with example images that clearly show the purpose,
function, and usage of POV-Ray's gamma handling, and ample SDL example scenes
would be the best way to educate users about gamma. Until then, I can't say
that my uneducated opinion is worth much - I understand gamma from a photography
standpoint - Ansel Adams' books were excellent on the subject.
>
> 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.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> (x) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - 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) Dunno - 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: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - 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: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2016 12:54 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> I think a tutorial with example images that clearly show the purpose,
> function, and usage of POV-Ray's gamma handling, and ample SDL example scenes
> would be the best way to educate users about gamma. Until then, I can't say
> that my uneducated opinion is worth much - I understand gamma from a photography
> standpoint - Ansel Adams' books were excellent on the subject.
This is a good idea! I don't feel I really know what is going on either!
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote on 16/10/2016 23:13:
> *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.
> (x) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (x) 1
> (x) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> (x) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> ( ) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> 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?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (x) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (x) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using those other features?
> (x) 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.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( ) I really like it.
> (x) I think it's mostly ok.
> ( ) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> 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.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> (x) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - 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) Dunno - 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.
> (x) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - 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: [___]
> (x) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote
Although my main Windows XP computer FAILED on me several months ago-- and I'm
currently using an iPad to temporarily communicate with the world-- I thought
I'd answer the survey anyway. I hope to have my computer fixed soon, or to buy a
new one. (Money issues, naturally.) I sorely miss working with POV-ray!
>
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> ( 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)
> ( X) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> ( X) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> (X) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
(Depends on what POV-Ray version I'm using; gamma 1.0 for v3.7xx, and gamma 2.2
for my older scenes in v3.62
>
Regarding gamma 1.0...
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> ( X) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> ( X) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> ( ) "rgb"
> (X ) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( X) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( X) 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
> ( X) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> ( X) "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
> ( X) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [assumed_gamma]
>
> Why are you using those other features?
> ( X) I like to toy around with them.
> ( X) I like the flexibility they provide.
> ( ) I need them to handle special cases.
> ( ) They don't default to the settings I typically want.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( X) 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( X) 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.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> (X ) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
Hmm, that's a difficult question for me to answer, as I haven't done enough
scenes lately to truly compare the visual differences. As long as the *colors*
are chosen correctly (via srgb), it really boils down to getting the 'look' of
an actual real-life scene. My own *visual* sense tells me that assumed_gamma 1.0
reproduces that better-- for example, the light/shadow terminator on a spherical
shape; but I had been using 2.2 for so long (prior to POV-Ray 3.7xx being
available) that I'm more 'visually familiar' with that-- based on looking at
typical mid-level-quality gamma-bent digital photos (not HDR) and how THEY show
up on a monitor. Decisions, decisions...
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> ( ) People say so, and that's good enough for me.
> ( X) The docs imply it, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
> ( X) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> ( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
> ( ) Dunno - 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?
> ( X) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
Mainly because I didn't understand at the time that assumed_gamma 1.0 in v3.6
also required a rethinking of the color values-- I was trying to use the same
color values for 1.0 and that I had used for 2.2, resulting in the oft-mentioned
'washed-out' color appearance, a BIG mistake on my part. That has been corrected
in v3.7xx with the newer 'srgb' color choice.
>
> 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: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
Haven't had enough experience comparing the two.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would like to know your opinion on these as well:
1) Which one of these images do you think looks more realistic?
http://koti.kapsi.fi/warp/media/pov37_test1.png
http://koti.kapsi.fi/warp/media/pov37_test2.png
2) Currently, when using assumed_gamma 1 in povray 3.7 mode, default
color values in things like the ambient finish do not get adjusted in
terms of srgb, but remain in their rgb values (for example, the default
ambient finish is "rgb 0.1"), which means that a change in assumed_gamma
will affect their brightness.
The second image above was rendered by explicitly specifying the default
ambient finish (using the #default directive in the scene file) using
"srgb". Without this explicit setting, ie. using the default value, the
image looks like this:
http://koti.kapsi.fi/warp/media/pov37_test4.png
(It's essentially impossible to get any shades are darker than that due to
the default ambient finish.)
So my question is: Should POV-Ray define default colors (eg. in the ambient
finish, and anywhere else where there are default colors) in terms of srgb
(which would result in the second image by default, without having to
explicitly set those defaults), or is the current functionality ok (which
by default results in the third image).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2016-10-16 16:13, 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.
> (X) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> (x) Other: [POV-Ray 3.5 (with Moray)]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> ( ) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> (X) Other: [1.9]
>
> 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.
> (X) Other: [setting used in Moray's default scene]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> (X) "rgb"
> ( ) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended format.
> (X) Other: [POV-Ray 3.5 doesn't work with srgb]
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( ) "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?
> ( ) "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.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> 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) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> 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.
> ( ) 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.
> (X) Dunno - 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.
> (X) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - 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) Dunno - 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: [___]
> (X) Dunno - 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: [___]
> (X) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You POV-Ray devs are so high tech! this survey is such an impressive technology
:-P (clever honestly !)
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> 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.
> (X) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (X) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> (X) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> (X) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> (X) "rgb"
> (X) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended format.
> (X) Other: [I think srgb is recommended but sopmetimes forget probably because
wondering about rgbt rgbf and if these
alpha values are inverted in regard to Blender]
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (X) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (X) "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: [to use the exported value specified in Blender Interface]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (X) 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (X) It works like a charm for me.
> ( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
> ( ) 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.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> (X) No, "assumed_gamma" has no effect on realism.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is actually less realistic.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - 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.
> (X) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> ( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
> ( ) Dunno - 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?
> (X) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - 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?
> (X) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
