clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Just let it suffice to say that you really should set Display_Gamma to a
> suitable value as described in the documentation, as from the next beta
> on there really should be no reason left to tamper with the setting.
>
> That's because 1.0 is /not/ the default Display_Gamma; depending on your
> system, it should be 2.2 (PC and Unix), or... well, don't know, maybe
> 1.6 for the Mac version.
> The thing is that gamma is not an "artistic" screw to tweak, but a
> purely technical one, intended to make sure that what /you/ see is as
> close as possible to what /others/ will see.
>
> If you think your image looks too washed-out, but you are sure that you
> set Display_Gamma to the proper value (not according to what you think
> looks cool, but as explained in the documentation), then what you really
> should do is to fix your scene.
>
> If you try to misuse this technical screw for artistic purposes, don't
> be surprised if the technical side starts getting in your way.
>
> There's currently still one caveat to this principle, and that's input
> image files, which /will/ be rendered too washed-out depending on file
> type. Next beta will do a better job there.

Thanks Christoph, I understand a *little* better now... I've gotten used to
"misusing" assumed_gamma over the last several years (with good results I think)
and v3.7 just ignores it.

So if using File_Gamma=2.2 on Windows, does v3.7 actually render in the linear
1.0 gamma space and then gamma correct to 2.2 for file output *after* the
antialiasing?

Post a reply to this message