clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> 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