in news:5803ed6b$1@news.povray.org clipka wrote:

> 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.
> ( ) 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?
> ( ) 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: [think lineair, let the soft calculate]
> 
> 
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( 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: [___]
> 
> 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.
> ( x) 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.
> ( ) 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?
> ( x) 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.
> ( ) 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.
> ( 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.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

On 16.10.2016 23:13, 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.
 > (x) Admittedly its been a time since I rendered anything
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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"
> ( ) "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'm used to it and usually define colors manually. I would use srgb if I
got the result from a color picker.]
>
>
> 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?
> ( ) "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: [None]
>
> 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: [Defaults appear to be fine. Also I work mostly with PNG where I think
gamma is already considered]
>
>
> 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.
   (X) Really I don't worry about it too much. My monitor is also not 
well calibrated. While I did a simple calibration procedure it is 
probably useless since I adjust brightness depending on what feels 
comfortable for the eye in current lighting conditions
>
> 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.
> (x) See above. But also I don't really remember getting much feedback along
 >     the lines of "your image look super dark to me" etc.
>
>
> 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.
> ( ) 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.
> (x) 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?
> (x) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> (x) But also I don't remember what 3.6 did exactly :)
>
> 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

>> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
>> (x) "rgb"

>> Why are you using that keyword?
>> (x) Other: [I'm used to it and usually define colors manually. I would
>> use srgb if I got the result from a color picker.]

Adding to that I also got the impression linear rgb is more
directly related to the physical characteristics of the material
(even if it is just a 3 element spectrum :D).

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2016 05:13 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.
> (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)
>
>
> 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.
> ( ) 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?
> ( ) 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
> (x) "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.
> (x) I like the flexibility they provide.
> (x) 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.
> (x) 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.>
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
 > (x) Other: [Accurate. 'realistic' perhaps too subjective a term]
>
> 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.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't have a clear opinion yet.
 > (x) Other: [I believe the math more accurate.]
>
> 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?
> ( ) 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.
 > (x) Other: [Don't routinely use non-1.0 or compare to 3.6 when I do.]
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2016 10:13 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.
 > (X) Thought it was a quiz.
 >
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 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)
 > (X) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
 > ( ) Other: [ I use both. 3.7 for integration with Bishop3d and 
 > 3.7/UberPov for speed.]
 >
 >
 > What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
 > ( ) none
 > ( ) 1
 > ( ) 1.8
 > ( ) 2.2
 > ( ) srgb
 > (X) Other: [1 When I can remember.]
 >
 > 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.
 > ( ) Other: [I will feel guilty if I don't.]
 >
 >
 > 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?
 > (X) "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?
 > (X) "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.
 > (X) Other: [N/A]
 >
 >
 > 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) Do not know - I've not thought about it much.
 >
 > 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.
 > ( ) Do not know - 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.
 > ( ) Do not know - I haven't heard that claim before.
 > (X) Do not know - I haven't made up my mind yet.
 > ( ) Do not know - 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) Do not know - 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: [I've 
not paid much attention, to be honest.]
 > ( ) Do not know - 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: [___]
 > ( ) Do not know - I don't use it.
 >
 >
 > What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
 > POV-Ray 3.7?
 > [___]
 >
 > -------------------------------------------------------------------
 >


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2016 7:00 PM, Stephen wrote:
>  > ( ) Other: [ I use both. 3.6 for integration with Bishop3d and >
> 3.7/UberPov for speed.]


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.10.2016 um 09:24 schrieb scott:

>> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
>> POV-Ray 3.7?
> 
> "assumed_gamma" is still a bit unintuitive IMO in what it actually does.
> I'm pretty sure if you took a person who knew a lot about gamma handling
> but had never used POV before, and asked them what they thought it did,
> they would most likely get it wrong.

Do you think the naming of the setting plays a major role in this, or
would you expect it to be just about as unintuitive under any other name?

Post a reply to this message

Le 16-10-16 à 17:13, clipka a écrit :
> *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?
> (*) 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
> ( ) Other: [Did not use in versions before 3.7]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> (*) I find it easiest to work with. Seems more "intuitive" for me.
> ( ) 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?
> (*) "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.
> ( ) 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.
> ( ) 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.
> ( ) 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.
> ( ) 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.
> ( ) 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. Never used in 3.6.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 17/10/2016 21:44, clipka wrote:
> Am 17.10.2016 um 09:24 schrieb scott:
>
>>> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
>>> POV-Ray 3.7?
>>
>> "assumed_gamma" is still a bit unintuitive IMO in what it actually does.
>> I'm pretty sure if you took a person who knew a lot about gamma handling
>> but had never used POV before, and asked them what they thought it did,
>> they would most likely get it wrong.
>
> Do you think the naming of the setting plays a major role in this, or
> would you expect it to be just about as unintuitive under any other name?

Both I think - AFAIK it effectively does two things (set the gamma 
assumed for non-gamma-corrected input values, and set the gamma used in 
the internal engine calculations). If it just did one or the other, the 
name could probably be more self-explanatory then.

Post a reply to this message

> 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