Ib Rasmussen wrote:
> 
> > As Tim explained most people are used to design their textures for
> 
> > assumed_gamma 1.
> 
> Do you have any hard data to support that assumption? I would think that
> most people would use the default 2.2. I know, I have never used
> anything else.

I have not investigated this matter into depth, could be interesting to
see what is commonly used in the IRTC scenes where source is given.  At
the risk of repeating myself, 'assumed_gamma' is not meant as a value to
adjust to personal preferences, in fact it is not really necessary because
for technically correct results you would either use a value of 1 (meaning
correct gamma correction being applied) or give no value (meaning the
render result is linear and needs to be gamma corrected afterwards).  

As explained before the huge advantage of using correct gamma adjustment
is that you can achieve realistic results by using 'correct' settings. 
You can surely also achieve realistic pictures with linear gamma but this
will require adjusting the values to fit well with each other until things
look good.  This will be immensely tricky when several people are working
on a scene - one will change the sky/light/radiosity settings to gain some
effects and all others will cry because their part no more looks good.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message