"Edward Coffey" <eco### [at] alphalinkcomau> wrote in message
news:3E9### [at] alphalinkcomau...
> Will W wrote:
>
> > That sounds like an alternate approach that could work. However it isn't
the
> >  one that's implemented in POV-Ray.
>
> I maintain that it is.
>
<snip good example>

Yes, you can force POV to do it this way. But it is not the way the gamma
tools were desigend to work.

Here's a counter example: Roll the clock forward about two years. In 2005
you do up some wallpaper on your trusty old Mac with its gamma of 1.8 and
send it tou your friend who is still using her trusty old PC with its gamma
of 2.2. She emails you an immediate response saying that she's delighted,
the colors are so vibrant! Neither of you think about gamma.

Why is this? Where has the gamma problem gone to?

It went into history. Although neither you nor your friend have updated your
hardware in quite a while, you are both staying current with software and
recent trends. So naturally you sent her the image in a lossless compression
.png file, which is so much better than the lossy old jpg files everybody
used to use. The png file also carries the gamma information so it can tell
whatever machine it ends up on how to best display itself. No problems.

*That* is what POV's gamma system is designed for. Eternal universality--
what a concept.

If you want the image files you develop in POV to still look good a couple
of years from now, a good thing to do would be to use POV's gamma controls
as documented, and use the .png format for your images. Currently that is
the only one that carries its own gamma correction information. It is the
most likely format to still look good when we are all using newfangled
roll-up organochromatic monitors with their wierd sub-one gammas (or
whatever they will have).


--
Will Woodhull
Thornhenge, SW Oregon, USA
willl.at.thornhenge.net

Post a reply to this message