|
|
On 3/6/22 08:35, jr wrote:
> if you ever recall why, please tell. now that I know about it, I do wonder what
> the rationale/potential benefit is when the chunk is not written.
OK. Found my related debugging newsgroup post.
Much more detail on the v3.8/v4.0 sRGB block issue being written nor not
can be found in a Mar 20, 2021 post to povray.beta-test. "File png/ppm
gamma issues. v3.8." See:
http://news.povray.org/povray.beta-test/thread/%3C60563168%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
or
Message: <60563168$1@news.povray.org>
The thread started after questions from ingo related to pgm/ppm file
output. I stumbled across the png sRGB block issue during that work.
Look for "--- png gamma issue.' for the parts of the original post
related to png input/output.
The bug amounts to POV-Ray not being consistent with 'itself' with
respect to png sRGB handling.
Looks like in reading the thread again I never did the detailed work to
figure out what all changed to cause the sRGB block to be dropped on
default writes though 'srgb' is our default output/input png gamma
handling profile.
I'd spent many days understanding what was happening in detail and
didn't want to spend hours to days more trying to run down the commit(s)
where the post v3.7 srgb png output file gamma handling broke. I just
fixed the issue - which explains why I couldn't remember the detailed
causes(a)!
(a) This time it might not have been my old failing brain! Of course, I
didn't remember I hadn't dug enough to determine exactly how we got into
the buggy state... ;-)
I know clipka worked quite a bit on the image file handling code over
years while working toward v3.71/v3.8(v4.0). It was likely broken
sometime during those changes.
Aside: Because broken v3.71/v3.8/v4.0 versions do still write a gamma
2.2 chunk, the differences visually be will be small / hard to 'see' -
they're at the dark end. This probably why the bug went years not
getting picked up. It's one of those insidious subtle bugs that cause
confusing / hair pulling results when they do bite.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|