Slime wrote:

>The solution to that:
>
>Create the image with assumed_gamma 1.8 and display_gamma 1.8.
>
>Then render the final version of the image with display_gamma 2.2, but
>assumed_gamma left alone. The image will then look on PCs the way it looked
>on a mac while you were creating it.

Would it be better to create the image with assumed_gamma 1.0 and
display_gamma 1.8, so the image maps look correct, and then render
at display_gamma 2.2? How would the image look different between
these cases? Are there other reasons to prefer assumed_gamma 1.0?

BTW, I'd probably produce the final image with a display_gamma 2.0,
a compromise between the two, as I don't want to totally abandon my
fellow Mac users :-)

Post a reply to this message