"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  Now, if you do make a gradient from black to white with POV-Ray 3.7,
> > the transition doesn't look linear for some reason,
>
> The key point here is "look" linear.  If you did the gradient with 3.7 and
> measured your monitor with a luminance meter you'd find it was a linear
> gradient.  Your eye/brain however doesn't see that as a "linear" gradient.
> (There are various transformations to convert absolute luminance into a
> "perceived" luminance, and they're not linear).
>
> BTW all this (about how your eye/brain works) is completely unrelated to how
> POV should work, POV should attempt to make your monitor display what the
> scene would look like if it existed IRL (just like how a camera works).  In
> this respect if IRL there existed a truly linear gradient from 0% to 100%
> then POV should attempt to make it look the same.  Which it does in 3.7.

Herein lies the fundamental argument between the two opposing camps: Should
POV-Ray imagery be presented to us (on-screen and in images) as
scientifically/technically accurate--"what the scene would look like if it
existed IRL"--or should it look "pleasing to the eye" (vis a vis Photoshop etc.)
and therefore, by nature, non-accurate? (That's just a philosophical question,
not meant to be answered.) Both camps have an equally valid point of view,
within their respective realms. (Of course, that might sound like I'm treating
the matter as 'just a matter of opinion', when it really isn't, for the many
technical reasons given.) Happily, the gamma 'switch' being discussed should
alleviate these concerns, from a practical standpoint--those of us desiring a
'visually pleasing' (though admittedly non-accurate) way to work can still have
it.

BTW, your post(s) have given me greater clarity as to the underlying reasons for
the 3.7 gamma change, what to expect and why. Many thanks.

Ken

Post a reply to this message