On 25-9-2012 20:08, Ive wrote:
> Hm, I fail to notice any improvement :(

Well, I did, some... :-)

>
> Having not used any of the standard texture include files myself since
> decades I took a quick look at golds.inc and assume you did replace the
> P_Gold statements by
> #declare P_Gold1 = srgb CVect1;
> ...and so on, right?

Yep.

>
> Well, I have sworn to keep my mouth shut on this topic but I simply
> can't help it. As I have stated multiple times all "color math" works
> only as expected within a linear color space (and doing this kind of
> math myself very often is one of the reasons I advocate for
> assumed_gamma 1.0 since decades).
> Now the author of golds.inc does apply a lot of mathematical operations
> on this declared color vectors afterwards - but when this vectors are
> already defined as non-linear srgb values all these operations are
> pretty pointless and the final textures will never look like expected.

In fact, I do not see any difference, but I see your point.

>
> And to get even a bit on topic ;) you might find the M_Gold macro with
> its sub-macro calls that are used for *Preview* rendering useful (and
> with a high reflective value like M_Gold(0.9) ) as they give under all
> lighting conditions fairly realistic results.

So... where is this M_Gold() located? I cannot find it  :-(


Thomas

Post a reply to this message