David El Tom <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

>
> If your are going to render an image, which will only be shown on one
> viewing device (video card + driver + monitor) you may indeed use
> gamma-correction in forehand. In this way it made no sense to send a
> sample image to let people deside (everyone on a different setup) what
> would be the better, beside you invite us all to visit you at home to
> see it on your monitor.
>

--Not necessary. ;-) see reply to stm3145 above--

But thinking about it, it has occured to me that a fair number of POV users
might be working on a system with a gamma of 1.7 (Unix users?) If so, then
my image might in fact appear TOO far out of its intended viewing range,
gamma-wise. Sorry about that; it does muddle things. But that would be a
problem with ANY "typical" image created on a 2.2-gamma system (or even
one like my own, set at 2.0) How do 1.7 systems reproduce any such image
"correctly"?  I'm guessing it has to be in the .png format, with a proper
embedded gamma. Personally, I don't like creating .png files, for two
reasons: Practically no app on either of my own computers recognizes the
embedded gamma info (not even my two *older* versions of Photoshop), and 2)
from what I've been reading in other posts here, some of the apps that DO
handle it seem to do so oddly.  POV itself is the exception, of course. But
I'd rather not take the chance, when posting images to the web.

Post a reply to this message