"Adrien Beau" <adr### [at] sycomorefr> wrote in message
news:3BB041E4.76733B14@sycomore.fr...
> "Bob H." wrote:
> >
> > Don't know, but looking at the last line of the last paragraph of
section
> > 5.2.2.2 in the doc I see it says newer hardware could use Display_Gamma
1.0.
>
> Most card drivers allow you to change the gamma to any
> value you want. So you can work at gamma 1.0. OTOH, lots
> of people will then complain about your images. IIRC,
> Fabien Mosen told me he worked at a gamma around 1.7.
>
> > Having tried that just now since I have the ATI mobility 128, which must
> > certainly have gamma correction of some sort, and putting assumed_gamma
1.0
> > as recommended I get a perfectly good rendering.
>
> But what was your Display_Gamma?

1.0 also, as was suggested for newer (about post-1995 do you think? :-))
video hardware in the doc.

> > kept thinking display gamma had to be set manually by using the graphic
> > supplied in the doc.
>
> Definitely yes.

If I set that to 2.3 though, which is what I get for the LCD screen near as
I can tell, then I must use assumed_gamma 2.3 also or none at all.  Using
1.0 for both settings is the exact same thing.  This is what I wonder about
then, whether it makes any difference once rendering on another machine.
This of course depends on whether or not assumed gamma is applied at all or
not.
Apparently the concept of using 1.0 for both isn't expressed in no uncertain
terms, that's why I always set display gamma to a visual appearance and then
expected assumed gamma would compensate from there.  Sorry about being so
inept about this but it's one of those things that leads me in circles.

I'm posting (yet another) gamma comparative image to p.b.i. in a minute just
to see if anyone has some more ideas on this cross-platform stuff which I
have no idea about.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message