"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> I refer to the thread in povray.general - Future of missing "assume_gamma"
>
(http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3Cweb.5dbe6e69db426e49984b401a0%40news.povray.org%3E/).
>
> I always rendered with gamm 1.0 from 1999 to 2005. Then I realized Gilles Tran
> went back from gamma 1 to gamma 2.2 back in 2002 or 2003. Christoph Gerber
> always used gamma 2.6 in his fantastic images (e.g.
> http://hof.povray.org/River.html).
>
> I know all the arguments for gamma 1.0 - but I like the sharper contrasts coming
> with gamma 2.2.
>

I agree. I just re-read Clipka's directives and noted that he was not /that/
rigid anymore in the end. As a reminder to all interested, I post the document
here.

> Of course I tried several times to get the same effects with gamma 1.0, but most
> of the times I used gamma 2.2 in the end.
> Here I show an image of a display I saw in a mall, consisting of about 50*100
> small tiltable plates (brushed aluminum I assume) showing some animated
> patterns.
>
> I tried hard to get a similar image with gamma 1, but no chance - it always
> looked boring to me.
>
> But perhaps I'm wrong - here is the source -
>

I have been playing with your scene and it is difficult (impossible?) to achieve
indeed.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'clipkas gamma tutorial.pdf' (423 KB)