"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> I took your advice-- I'm currently working on a complex text scene, taking into
> account assumed_gamma, and rgb/srgb colors for both objects AND light sources--
> because I personally want to form an opinion about whether or not to use srgb
> colors for lights as well, simply to get the color I 'visually' expect as
> opposed to 'linear' rgb colors that are intrinsically washed-out in an
> assumed_gamma 1.0 environment. I know that Clipka recommended we stick with
> 'rgb' there, but my test scene will compare the difference.

Yes, the washed-out thing is very off-putting.
In situations where there is no readily-available and easily-understood
documentation that adequately explains how all of the pieces influence the final
result, I think it's just as important to understand what _doesn't_ work (and
why ) as it is to be aware of what does work.

In the absence of any "proper" way to achieve an end result, the Warp et al
approach of using assumed_gamma 2.2 is both understandable and unavoidable.
However, if there _exists_ a "proper" method by which to achieve the exact same
results, then it's important to people who spend a lot of time using the system
to be proficient with that, even though there may be specific instances where
they purposefully don't.  (In this instance, using the "proper" gamma for all of
the reasons that clipka outlined involving lighting, monitors, highlights and
shadows, etc.)


> Can I assume that, if I choose *not* to use the M-multiplier in your functions
> (for my simpler test scene), I could just change the function like so? and with
> C being a typical 3-part color vector like <.3,.6,.9>)?:




A multiplier of 1 is ... no multiplier at all.   ;)

Post a reply to this message