clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 30.11.2010 22:51, schrieb Kenneth:
> > coherent and accurate approach to lighting, colors, etc. And Clipka has
> > mentioned that a 'pre-3.7 gamma switch' is being discussed (which would seem to
> > be a solution to 'our problem'-- less of a 'blunt weapon' approach than simply
> > using the version 3.6 directive.)
>
> If the change proves to work as intended, you will essentially have
> three choices:
>
> (A) Use a "#version 3.6" directive and no "assumed_gamma" to get default
> 3.6 behaviour.
>
> (B) Use "assumed_gamma" with any #version directive you like (or none at
> all) to get 3.6 "assumed_gamma" behaviour.
>
> (C) Use a "#version 3.7" (or higher) directive and no "assumed_gamma" to
> get the new 3.7 gamma behaviour, which would essentially be the same as
> using "assumed gamma 1.0" plus a ton of improvements for input image files.
>
> (A) and (B) will be for backward compatibility only, and will not play
> well with the new 3.7 gamma-related features such as the File_Gamma INI
> option or the "gamma" SDL keyword. There will also be some caveats
> regarding PNG input files.

Sounds fine. Your intentions are admirable. Your science is impressive. But I
always seem to hear a lot of uncertainty in your final tone. The system is so
interrelated you obviously appreciate how hard it is to know how it will turn
out. When I tried to reproduce in 3.7 Steve Gower's wonderful "Bucket of
Seashells", however, using every possible gamma/version/ambience whatever I
could think of, I was surprised how dramatically different everything looked.
The smooth beach turned into a pile of large boulders. The light on the water
looked fake and glaringly over exposed. Parts of the seashells lost all their
beautiful gradations and were just black.

Post a reply to this message