Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
> Kenneth wrote:
>
> > The 'old' POV documentation, with its near-insistance
> > on using an assumed_gamma of 1.0, is misleading in that regard.
>
> There is nothing misleading and this "near-insistance" had and has
> its good reasons. You should (re)read the list of changes for
> POV 3.7 about gamma correction and assumed_gamma. An example why it
> is a good idea to use assumed_gamma 1.0 with 3.6 is posted in p.b.i
> (and this antialiasing issue has nothing to do with the fact that
> the images are in PNG format, it just compresses this kind of images
> very well)
>
> -Ive

Yes, I probably *should* re-read the 3.7 changes--always a good thing to
revisit-- although I will probably continue with my own gamma 'philosophy.' :-)

A long while ago, I posted a discussion about using assumed_gamma 1.0 vs. *other
values,' which elicited many arguments on both sides of the fence. (Gamma
correction has a 'long and venerable history' in the POV newsgroups!) In the
final analysis, my own choice of assumed_gamma came down to what my eyes tell
me, vs. what the POV documentation recommends. I could *still* be wrong about
it all, but IMO, using assumed_gamma 2.2 (on my PC) better 'matches' the visual
imagery I see from digital cameras, on the web, in Photoshop, etc. I *do*
understand that my choice goes against the 'physically correct' lighting
behavior of assumed_gamma 1.0--but I had to trust my eyes.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message