clipka wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> I'm a strong believer that the combination of graphic cards and display
>>> should provide a gamma of 1.0: linear curve;

That would probably not look good with just 8-bit per color. But I do 
agree that would be the best. I don't think it would happen because in 
the transition from today's default of 2.2 everything would look ugly.

>> I thought that too, and tried configuring my graphics card that way.
>> Everything looked washed out. Because almost nobody who makes images or
>> chooses website colors or whatever has the gamma set that way.
> 
> Yep. Which is because nobody who *views* websites has the gamma set that way.
> 

Most people view with something close to 2.2 I guess.

> Simple as that. There's a de-facto standard out there in real life. It's rather
> vague, but it's definitely *not* 1.0.

The de-facto standard on the web seems to be sRGB with a gamma close to 
2.2 (The true gamma is more complicated, see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB).

Thats what my monitors are tuned to anyway.

-- 
Daniel Nilsson

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> > I'm a strong believer that the combination of graphic cards and display
>> > should provide a gamma of 1.0: linear curve;
>>
>> I thought that too, and tried configuring my graphics card that way.
>> Everything looked washed out. Because almost nobody who makes images or
>> chooses website colors or whatever has the gamma set that way.
> 
> Yep. Which is because nobody who *views* websites has the gamma set that
> way.

Correct. Typical catch-22, particularly hard to get out of...

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Yep. Which is because nobody who *views* websites has the gamma set that
> > way.
>
> Correct. Typical catch-22, particularly hard to get out of...

.... or, in this case, a catch-2.2, so to speak...

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen [mailto:mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom]
> Not everyone can use a newsreader at work on a locked down company
> machine.

Do I really need to point out that usually companies who lock down their
machines like this also have policies about using the computer for
personal use?

If you're going to circumvent your company's policies, then be prepared
for trouble.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:44:11 -0800, "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen [mailto:mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom]
>> Not everyone can use a newsreader at work on a locked down company
>> machine.
>
>Do I really need to point out that usually companies who lock down their
>machines like this also have policies about using the computer for
>personal use?
>

No, you don't need to point it out.

>If you're going to circumvent your company's policies, then be prepared
>for trouble.
>

Of course! My captain.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> I'm a strong believer that the combination of graphic cards and display
> should provide a gamma of 1.0: linear curve;

No, because it's better to have an 8bit number with bigger steps in 
brightness at the higher end, because that's how your eyes work.  If the 
difference in brightness between 4,4,4 and 5,5,5 were the same as 
254,254,254 and 255,255,255 (ie gamma 1.0) then we would see even worse 
"colour banding" for darker colours than we do currently with 8 bit 
hardware, and at the top end there would be an even less visible change for 
each step.

> number of bits per channel (I like 8, but you need a CRT; LCD do not
> have so much bits for all colour... and they might not be linear)

BTW inside most LCDs, the 8 bit input signal will be used to index a look up 
table (which contains the gamma and LC response curves), where the entries 
are 10 or 11 bit numbers that then drive the DACs that directly give the 
voltage to each pixel.  Very cheap LCDs only use 6 bits to index the look up 
table, and then have 8 or 9 bit DACs, but they are becoming rarer and rarer 
nowadays.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> No, because it's better to have an 8bit number with bigger steps in
> brightness at the higher end, because that's how your eyes work.  If the
> difference in brightness between 4,4,4 and 5,5,5 were the same as
> 254,254,254 and 255,255,255 (ie gamma 1.0) then we would see even worse
> "colour banding" for darker colours than we do currently with 8 bit
> hardware, and at the top end there would be an even less visible change for
> each step.

100% agree. That's one of the reasons I typically do only HDR output these days.
Did I mention that I like MegaPOV? :)

Post a reply to this message

In the latest beta I keep getting this error:

"Parse Warning: assumed_gamma is not supported in POV-Ray v3.7 and later SDL.
For compatibility purposes an assumed_gamma of 1.0 is taken to
mean gamma correction is on (which is also now the default setting). If you will
not be using this scene with older versions of POV-Ray it
is safe to remove the assumed_gamma statement. See the documentation for more
information regarding this change."

Where is the current methodology documented? I checked the help file and the
section on assumed_gamma seems to not have been changed.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

"SharkD" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> In the latest beta I keep getting this error:
> [...]
> Where is the current methodology documented? I checked the help file and the
> section on assumed_gamma seems to not have been changed.

It's a beta, so people using it are expected to read the release notes, readme
files and other stuff nobody would usually bother to read for a final release.

The documentation is in beta-stage as well, meaning it needs work, too.
(Although to me it actually seems closer to 3.6 gamma still than anything
else... I guess the PoV-ray developers are mainly programmers after all, so
end-user documentation will be the last thing on their to-do lists.)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> It's a beta, so people using it are expected to read the release notes, readme
> files and other stuff nobody would usually bother to read for a final release.
>
> The documentation is in beta-stage as well, meaning it needs work, too.
> (Although to me it actually seems closer to 3.6 gamma still than anything
> else... I guess the PoV-ray developers are mainly programmers after all, so
> end-user documentation will be the last thing on their to-do lists.)

OK, thanks.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message