Author Topic: Please return spinner "Gamma"  (Read 25374 times)

2014-12-24, 16:58:49
Reply #15

kregred

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
@ecximer

Why do you need the gamma spinner?

The gamma should be set at 2.2 for work, and if you render in full float you will get an untoned exr image, after that apply your gamma in comp, since you have a full float image you can do whatever you want.

You should not be playing with gamma for correcting the render IMHO, you should get a linear full float image to work in comp.

Master Zap did a great post about this some years ago.

Cheers!
It's possible to write a lot about gamma 2.2, and that it's the only one correct. But not everyone works by-design and it's incorrect to fit everyone in one size.
I don't work in 2.2 (and ecximer also doesn't), but now I have to change my workflow. For example, the latest gif I posted above is made in gamma 1.4, and I can't achieve the same result in latest builds. That leads to the need of post-processing and excessove manipulations... what for??
It's much simpler to leave the switch in settings, and don't make life harder for users. That would be their choice in which gamma to work.

But please don't tell me that it's only correct to work in 2.2 - there are many opinions about this.
Our betatesters group is discussing this question quite frequently, and there is still no consensus about this. But anyway, it's the final result what is important, and not the correctness of it... the most important is the result - that's why I ask to return the gamma in setting.
And newbies won't find it anyway. Btw, other renders all have gamma settings, isn't that proof enough?

2014-12-24, 20:15:23
Reply #16

ecximer

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Scriptobot
    • View Profile
kregred, +1
for me, "work in gamma 2.2 only" = "warm lamp sound"
« Last Edit: 2014-12-24, 20:19:34 by ecximer »
sorry for my english

2014-12-24, 20:41:01
Reply #17

juang3d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
Ok, I understand you have different workflows, but then why don't you make yourself a macro script or a script that enables you to change the gamma in a general way? Not just for corona but in max in general.

Because now you can change your gamma settings in max, I understand it's difficult to change it now because it is inside settings, but you can do it.

I'm out of my computer until late next week but I'll try and check if I can do a script that enables you to change the max gamma when you want.

Anyways as Keymaster said, handling the gamma himself makes the file saving slower (or the framebuffer handling, I'm not sure about what was slower), but you can handle it from max.

Merry Christmas to everyone who celebrates it!

Cheers!

2014-12-24, 22:08:29
Reply #18

Polymax

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • CG Generalist
    • View Profile
    • maxkagirov.com
I agree with Kregred! I don't understand how the gamma parameter can spoil the render.
Many who heard about it (from future customers) write to me that a very saddened by this fact ...
Corona - the best rendering solution!

2014-12-24, 23:06:01
Reply #19

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9042
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
It's possible to write a lot about gamma 2.2, and that it's the only one correct. But not everyone works by-design and it's incorrect to fit everyone in one size.
I don't work in 2.2 (and ecximer also doesn't), but now I have to change my workflow. For example, the latest gif I posted above is made in gamma 1.4, and I can't achieve the same result in latest builds. That leads to the need of post-processing and excessove manipulations... what for??
It's much simpler to leave the switch in settings, and don't make life harder for users. That would be their choice in which gamma to work.

But please don't tell me that it's only correct to work in 2.2 - there are many opinions about this.


The problem is that gamma is just not an artistic control tool - it HAS to be used in some way, otherwise your workflow will be ruined. Yes, jpegs have to have 2.2. Yes, you can use 1.6 to get more contrast. But this is deliberately lying in the image format. It will eventually cause troubles.

Example1: HDRs vs LDRs. Say you apply gamma 1.6. Then one day you want to save an EXR. EXRs are without gamma - so do you leave gamma to 1.0? That would erase your gamma postpro effect. So actually you would need to apply some gamma <1.0 to get the same effect for EXRs as applying gamma <2.2 for JPEGs. This gets ugly quickly.

Example 2: Misinformed/outdated tutorials on the internet claim "mac has gamma 1.8", or "LCD monitors have gamma 2.4". While that may be true (in some totally irrelevant sense), it may fool people into thinking they should change gamma in every scene to make it "more correct", while in the reality, the way 3dsmax is implemented, ONLY 2.2 is correct (because it specifies the gamma of the output color space, not any hardware - OS handles that for you).

This is using tools outside its intended purpose, as hacks. It caused some bugs in Corona with 3dsmax, with different frame buffers and render elements, so I have taken it out. Plus to control gamma, I had to actually first remove the 3dsmax gamma, then apply Corona gamma, resulting in longer save times.

Now, I am not saying some gamma-like control could not be added - but it should not be named gamma, but rather something like "midtone balance", with default 1.0, applied both to HDR and LDR indiscriminatively.


I first encountered this gamma stuff when doing this image:


I was trying to match my real world compter. But for some unknown reason, I was unable to get any light inside of the case - either it was too dark, or everything else was overbright. I tried different tricks, invisible lights, removing glass, increasing GI amount > 1.0 (gotta love vray ;)), but nothing looked remotely right. Then I discovered the linear workflow tutorial, set it up, and BAM, everything was exactly like in reality. Of course, I thought, everything around was too washed up, unrealistic, etc. I wanted to go back to 1.0, but I had to stick with gamma 2.2 to match the reality inside the case. By the end if the project, I would never go back to 1.0 workflow.

I know I won't convince you, nobody is obliged to use only physically correct workflow - but IMHO you cannot go wrong by sticking to it, and deviating only as little as possible ;).
« Last Edit: 2014-12-26, 23:50:22 by headoff »
Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-12-25, 12:33:59
Reply #20

ecximer

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Scriptobot
    • View Profile
My God, call it whatever you like this option, only return the opportunity to use them. Once again, I want to emphasize: let it be the hidden (noob will not know about it), while others will adjust the gamma AT YOUR OWN RISK. I now have a hell without him.
sorry for my english

2014-12-25, 12:38:40
Reply #21

antanas

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Hmm ...
    • View Profile
My God, call it whatever you like this option, only return the opportunity to use them. Once again, I want to emphasize: let it be the hidden (noob will not know about it), while others will adjust the gamma AT YOUR OWN RISK. I now have a hell without him.

Ermm - perhaps http://www.monotoneminimal.com/vfb ? + it got nicest bloom and aberrations filters not to mention firefly reduction which works like a charm ...

2014-12-25, 12:53:00
Reply #22

juang3d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
But why don't you work with max gamma? If it's hidden it's the same as working with max gamma...

Cheers!

2014-12-25, 13:42:59
Reply #23

snakebox

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
    • Snakebox Media
It's possible to write a lot about gamma 2.2, and that it's the only one correct. But not everyone works by-design and it's incorrect to fit everyone in one size.
I don't work in 2.2 (and ecximer also doesn't), but now I have to change my workflow. For example, the latest gif I posted above is made in gamma 1.4, and I can't achieve the same result in latest builds. That leads to the need of post-processing and excessove manipulations... what for??
It's much simpler to leave the switch in settings, and don't make life harder for users. That would be their choice in which gamma to work.

But please don't tell me that it's only correct to work in 2.2 - there are many opinions about this.

I first encountered this gamma stuff when doing this image:


I was trying to match my real world compter. But for some unknown reason, I was unable to get any light inside of the case - either it was too dark, or everything else was overbright. I tried different tricks, invisible lights, removing glass, increasing GI amount > 1.0 (gotta love vray ;)), but nothing looked remotely right. Then I discovered the linear workflow tutorial, set it up, and BAM, everything was exactly like in reality. Of course, I thought, everything around was too washed up, unrealistic, etc. I wanted to go back to 1.0, but I had to stick with gamma 2.2 to match the reality inside the case. By the end if the project, I would never go back to 1.0 workflow.

I know I won't convince you, nobody is obliged to use only physically correct workflow - but IMHO you cannot go wrong by sticking to it, and deviating only as little as possible ;).

I 98% agree with you, from an industry standard point of view, if you are not using gamma 2.2 and correcting what ever you want in post, you are doing it wrong... flat out, no arguing.
The problem is.... the last 2%.. every so often you have people that are able to make nice images, and they don't follow any current standard or still does what worked 10 years ago.  But this doesn't mean they can't make photo real correct images, they just get there a different way. 

limiting people to gamma 2.2 gains you absolutely nothing!   if you read a book on technical animation and tell someone at pixar that if they don't animate like that, its wrong... you will be very disappointed.  You may still be correct "technically" but it means fuck all to artists what is technically right... if it works, it works. 

I use gamma 2.2 these days, used to use 1.0, since moving to doing post in 32 bit float in nuke, 2.2 and linear is the only thing that makes sense... but before that? my images got to the quality they should by using 1.0 and exponential. today, you can't tell that those images were done like that.

anyway... if you don't leave the option to override the gamma, you will find people simply won't use corona. 

2014-12-25, 15:35:23
Reply #24

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4314
    • View Profile
    • studio website
the last 2%. (of users)

------------------------------

people simply won't use corona.

If something benefits 2perc. but hardly anyone else, then I don't think your conclusion applies... people don't abandon whole app because their request for legacy workflow has been cut off.

talcikdemovicova.com  Website and blog
be.net/jurajtalcik   Our studio Behance portfolio
Instagram   Our studio Instagram, managed by Veronika

2014-12-25, 15:56:11
Reply #25

juang3d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
This is not something like put or remove a spinner, I think that based in what Keymaster said, it's an internal thing that causes more harm than good, and anyways, I insist, you can keep working with max gamma control and create that spinner yourself.

Cheers.

2014-12-25, 18:21:37
Reply #26

snakebox

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
    • Snakebox Media
the last 2%. (of users)

------------------------------

people simply won't use corona.

If something benefits 2perc. but hardly anyone else, then I don't think your conclusion applies... people don't abandon whole app because their request for legacy workflow has been cut off.

the thing is, for those its not a legacy workflow.. its a current.    Personally I couldn't care less if we get the option or not, but I don't think there is any need to restrict it either. It doesn't make corona worse in any way. if by changing the gamma things "won't appear correct" technically, people that does change this, should know... it's not like corona breaks.  right?

2014-12-25, 19:19:52
Reply #27

juang3d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
Again is not a matter of adding or removing a spinner it's the technology to handle the render gamma, max already has that, there is no need to have it inside the render engine, you can manage that from max, just change the max gamma and you have what you need with the gamma you want, create a maxscript to handle this and you are good to go with ANY render engine, not just Corona.

Cheers!

2014-12-25, 20:57:13
Reply #28

borisquezadaa

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 615
    • View Profile
A gamma spinner like this would be awesome...


Merry Christmas!.
What i do with Corona My Corona post of random stuff rendering
WARNING: English.dll still loading...

2014-12-25, 21:49:01
Reply #29

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9042
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
It is funny... there is one thread where people are predicting corona will become bloated package of legacy switches nobody would use, then this thread, where people are predicting nobody would use corona if it won't support their legacy workflows ;)
Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)