clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> That said, it seems to me that Firefox is doing it right (at least on
> systems with a display subsystem gamma of around 2.2): In the case of
> this particular file, it is the more washed-out version that is right.

I suspected so (although it's kind of hard to tell which one Dave Blandston
intended for us to see; neither one looks *quite* right.) So I've posted a
little comp of both of the images that I see on my own system (both as viewed in
Firefox)--done as simple screen captures, and saved as a jpeg file, which
doesn't --or *shouldn't*--have any embedded gamma. (My apologies to Tek for
co-opting his original message thread with an off-topic image of my own.) This
way, Dave can see what I see. The tonal values of this jpeg image 'match' those
of the original images I saw when using Firefox, on my Windows XP system. In
other words, on my own system everything matches up visually.

The mystery that remains is why the newsgroup 'preview' image should look
different than the downloaded image--since both are being viewed in the same
software at my end (Firefox.) Given that Dave's use of assumed_gamma in POV v3.7
may be wrong, how would that make a difference? The conclusion I reach--in my
best Sherlock Holmes fashion ;-) -- is that POV's newsgroup software (whatever
it is) may not be handling/presenting v3.7 gamma-encoded .png images
correctly(?) in the preview.

Or maybe it's some crazy Windows-specific problem. Anyway, just some thoughts.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'png_viewing_test.jpg' (91 KB)

Preview of image 'png_viewing_test.jpg'