"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > ...
> > Our computers/monitors have an intrinsic built-in  'gamma' of generally around
> > 2.2. That computer gamma is the curved "CRT gamma line" in the diagram. The
> > straight line represents color values fed to the display.
>
> monitors tend to have an OSD where colour "profiles" can be selected; eg I can
> choose from 9300K, 6500K, custom, and srgb.  so should I (continue to) go with
> 'srgb' and use 'assumed_gamma 1' in all my scenes, or...?
>
>
I wish I had a monitor like yours, with more sophisticated controls; mine is
currently a cheap LED-backlit LCD 'TV'. It doesn't have choices like 6500K etc,
just the dumb 'consumer' choices like 'sports', 'movies', 'baseball'(!), etc.,
along with manual custom settings.  (I'm researching new monitors at the moment,
looking for something that has spot-on color accuracy re: sRGB. It's turning
into a lengthy search!)

My understanding is that 6500K is the 'standard' color temperature for a
monitor; take a look here...

https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/color_temperature_on_an_LCD_monitor/

I assumed color temperature was a different 'thing' than  'srgb'; it's a
surprise to me that your monitor gives you that particular choice, but I could
be wrong (or  ill-informed at present.) I wish I could be more helpful.

In POV-ray, I presently use assumed_gamma 1.0, the long-recommended value (along
with srgb colors rather than linear rgb.) But one of the new nagging questions
that I currently have is about the use of the newer assumed_gamma srgb, and what
effect *it* may have on a rendered scene. The documentation isn't clear as to
why it's an alternative. Since it is nearly a 2.2 gamma, it is bound to have a
rather profound effect, at least in the render preview. I've never used it
before, but I plan to run some tests.

Post a reply to this message