So I came to find out that there are two ways to render:  Gamma correction on or off.  If you are not rendering with Firefly GC on, you will need to have your shaders perform the GC.  I was wondering:  Do all vendors provide shaders that are for rendering with GC off?  Have you come across any vendors who provide shaders for both so that the end user can choose which way to render and still get the same results for the product?

I'm currently converting all my GCed products to auto-detect render-GC (which will turn material GC off) with the infinitely clever solution provided by BagginsBill and explained by IsaoShi here in these forums.

The vendors who use GC shaders are a handful.  However, the number is growing.

In the past month or so, I've had 7 vendors ask to use my materials VSS, BBCarPaint, BBLeather, and BBGlass in their products. I have said yes to all (for free!).

The BBCarPaint and glass are auto-GC.

The VSS shaders are adjustable manually, but will soon be re-released as auto-GC.

So the number of vendors delivering GC shaders is growing.

Keep in mind that most products are compatible with a lot of different versions of Poser. Most vendors will  provide shaders that are for rendering with GC of, since officially, GC is only supported by Poser Pro & PP 2010 and not by all of the other versions of Poser.

Then you have the next problem..... products these days do need to be Poser and DS compatible. If someone is using Poser shaders, you loose a good number of sales. I've done a few products that were using Poser shaders and I had 50% less interest for them then usual.

A lot of vendors unfortunatelly, cannot afford to use Poser only features, it will hurt sales too much.

Quote - Keep in mind that most products are compatible with a lot of different versions of Poser. Most vendors will  provide shaders that are for rendering with GC of, since officially, GC is only supported by Poser Pro & PP 2010 and not by all of the other versions of Poser.

Renderer GC, this is true. Material GC, not true.

My GC- material shader works in Poser 5-6-7-8.

And soon in Pro even with render-GC as well, right?

Material auto-GC is the only thing that looks the same in all products in all rendering modes.

I don't even tell people when I'm using GC anymore. As long as they don't know it's GC, they are less intimidated.

Good point, Bill. Actually, the whole point behind the Auto-GC node set is so that no one knows it's there, particularly my Poser Pro / 2010 users.

Quote -
Material auto-GC is the only thing that looks the same in all products in all rendering modes.

That's nice.  I've been having a hard time getting the GC on renders to look the same as the GC off ones.

they can not look the same

You need gamma correction only if your monitor or video card has no gamma correction.
You must remember that not all the video monitors have the same gamma and the value also changes with the intensity settings.
The monitor that I am using in this moment the images look different (worst too much gamma correction) than on my monitor that ended  its life by a shower of sparks in the flyback.
With which gamma you will make the renderings, 1.0, 1.4, 2.2 0.7????

If I recall - and it has been awhile - you can also gamma correct an image in post using an application like Photoshop if you don't or can't go the routes offered in the latest Poser versions.

Here we go again. It's not enough that people are intimidated. Now, yet again, a thread regarding GC will create MASSIVE confusion because people like kawecki say things like he said.

Please - ignore him.

Kawecki denies the existance of the sRGB standard, which all monitors follow. His problem stems from the use of the word "correction" in the term "gamma correction". It used to be a correction. Now it is an intentional part of how displays work, and for good reason. He thinks that images don't need "correcting" on modern displays, because they are not primitive tools made of rocks and bee guts anymore. He's wrong. They are still non-linear.

All the incoming textures you use are gamma corrected. They must be anti-gamma corrected to work with a linear rendering equation (which is the only kind any of us have). Then the final result must be gamma corrected again to match the response curves of the actual monitors WE ALL USE.

Ignore him. please.

Quote - Here we go again. It's not enough that people are intimidated. Now, yet again, a thread regarding GC will create MASSIVE confusion because people like kawecki say things like he said.

Please - ignore him.

Here comes again always the same guy, who must be ignored is bagginsbill, he only wants to sell his products.
I am a vendor too, but I am not selling anti-gamma products or work for a company selling anti-gamma devices.

Better get more informed about what is gamma correction and for what are needed and used gamma correction charts.
If we were living in BB's world these charts would be without any use and LCD fabricants were wasting their money in hardware to distort the RGB signal to to revert BB's gamma correction because LCD respond in a linear way and not like a tube.
And the gamma correction used in photography is not the same as in a monitor, color pigments are not a vacuum tube and doesn't obey the same physical laws.
And today who set the standards is China and not the US.

Gamma correction in 8 bit colors cannot be reverted without degrading the image.
8 bit colors have only 256 intensity values and gamma correction have more effect in dark colors that are more nearer the quantize step creating big errors.
If you have an image, then apply gamma correction and then apply anti-gamma correction of the same value the final image never will be equal to the original, it always degrades in the same way as a jpeg image with high levels of compression.
With 16 bit colors or TIFF floating point colors the errors are much less and can be insignificant, but a jpeg image with 1% compression is not the same as a png or bmp image.

Images must be created in a linear way without any distortion, if your monitor has a gamma problem adjust it to compensate its non linearities. If your monitor has not this feature probably your video card has it. In this way your image will look the same in any calibrated monitor.

I am an artist and as any artist I know very well what is a troll and of course, I don't care about he/she/it.

What is Bagginsbill "selling"? He's given a lot away, but to my knowledge, he hasn't sold anything (although he certainly could have!!).

I work with surgeons, Kawecki. They, like you, can only see a problem/issue/condition from one perspective. Trying to convince them to open their minds and consider that - oh, my GOODness! - they may have missed something, is completely impossible. I'm accustomed to the highly educated/thus completely blinded to new information approach.

So, I can accept that your way of thinking, however wrong, exists. I will not accept that you are right, since I actually DID the exercise of linearising colour information prior to processing and then correcting before rendering. I have published those exercises.

Until you can give more than opinion - incontrovertible proof - that colour information does NOT need to be linearised in Poser before processing and then corrected prior to rendering via a series of screen captures explaining your process and renders to show your results, then your opinion remains nothing but just that: your opinion.

Which makes you the artist (and right about monitors, and Bagginsbill the scientist... and right about Poser render behaviour.

Attached Link: http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html

*) if you don't care for correct results

Quote -
Here comes again always the same guy, who must be ignored is bagginsbill, he only wants to sell his products.

Instead of resorting to personal attacks your time might be better spent reading more about gamma correction, you might learn something.

Here's a good place to start:

www.ypoart.com/tutorials/tone/gamma.php

Quote - Until you can give more than opinion - incontrovertible proof - that colour information does NOT need to be linearised in Poser before processing and then corrected prior to rendering via a series of screen captures explaining your process and renders to show your results, then your opinion remains nothing but just that: your opinion.

And so what? If you don't like my "opinion" don't use it.
If you like washed images it is your problem and not mine.
I only want to know from where you got the value 2.2, from the internet?, from some sites?
Do you want to know the transfer function of grid voltage-anode current of a cathode ray tube?, find it by yourself and it is not a simple I = V^gamma.

Quote - > Quote -

Here comes again always the same guy, who must be ignored is bagginsbill, he only wants to sell his products.

Instead of resorting to personal attacks your time might be better spent reading more about gamma correction, you might learn something.

Here's a good place to start:

www.ypoart.com/tutorials/tone/gamma.php

Here we go again...... Please do correct the person who started it and not the one who responded. BB, as usual, attacks and insults people and someone else gets blamed for it. Happens every time.... as soon as the words Gamma Correction appear on this forum, you can sit and wait for BB to come in and insult someone and his buddies to come in and join him. BB resorted to personal attack first, so please do correct him for doing so and not someone else.

Kawecki, sorry that you've been insulted that way. Don't feel bad though, it happens to everyone who has a different opinion then BB has, so welcome to club if insulted ones :-)

See how he attacks and confuses.

The transfer function is called sRGB. Nobody said it is x^2.2. That is an approximation that is correct to within a tiny percentage.

The sRGB specifies a transfer function that is neither a simple linear function nor a simple exponential function. But it is designed to be closely approximated by x^2.2. In any case, it isn't a straight line and even Robyn is misleading.

This isn't just about linear rendering. It starts with the premise that digital images are nonlinear, specifically because they are designed for computer displays in the sRGB format.

Then you realize that "the rendering equation" is linear, and that to use the images and colors you want, you must transform them from sRGB color space to linear first. Then you render. Then you convert from linear color space to sRGB color space.

This isn't an Internet thing, kawecki, and you really really are a ridiculous distraction because you are unable to read the simplest explanations. You are one of those people who have parts of their brains running at brilliant levels, but other parts well below normal. The result is you have trouble assimilating information that doesn't fit your partial understanding of things, and you also have sufficient success in some limited areas that you think you're an authority on everything.

I am not selling anything and for you to accuse me of doing so is cowardly and another demonstration fo your lack of social skills which interferes with me and causes confusion on a regular basis. It also demonstrates that your ability to reason is flawed, deeply. Whether or not I sell something in no way alters the fact that there is a standard called sRGB. I did not invent the standard, and you keep trying to distract people with nonsense that fails to address the sRGB standard.

 I have done nothing but give things away. I have no products. You're obnoxious as all hell, and you're wasting my efforts to help people understand things. You need to stop, very badly. Last time you sent me over the top, I left the forum for a week and the whole Luxpose effort stalled while I  was gone.

You make my hands shake.

I'm going out all day and I got up now at 5 am thinking to try to finish the Luxpose 0.2.0 and get it out so people could play with it all weekend.

But now, you've pissed me off so bad, I can barely type.

So - people - here's another day where you have no Luxpose from me and it's kawecki's doing.

no, it's not.  it's a slightly more complex sRGB equation which as bagginsbill has posted long ago.  it's what i use on my own materials.  i can link you to a bunch of renders showing the difference.  more accurate sRGB materials and GC are close, though significantly different for the majority of the lighting situations i made based on reference photos (too light and too desaturated).  enough different that i really, really, don't like using GC.  still, uncorrrected gibberish renders (sRGB textures and colors in a linear render displayed on an sRGB device) were just plain way off.  you lose whole hunks of your gamut.  unless you do very careful, very specific renders, you can't address it in post because the information is just plain gone.

as far as i can tell, in most situations, you can postwork to get from GC to more accurate sRGB.  but gibberish workflow is just so off, you really can't.

oops.  x-post with bagginsbill.

no problem - I need people to beat this fucker down. I'm sick of it.

You can't understand with letters on a screen how this drives me absolutely bonkers.

The TOS prevents me from expressing myself fully.

And the TOS protects HIM. He does not quite do enough to get official response.

He needs a social one.

aeilkema - he didn't insult kawecki.  he said not to listen to him and that he was wrong.  that's not an insult.  saying that someone is lying to make money is an insult.  and supporting the person making the insult while attacking the person who's just making a technical point shows a pretty clear bias on your part.

just because someone's comment hurts yours, or someone else's, feelings doesn't make it an insult.  sometimes the truth hurts.  and stating the truth, no matter how much or how little tact and politeness was involved, doesn't give you, or anyone else, leeway to make personal statements as kawecki did about bagginsbill's motivations.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

Here comes again always the same guy, who must be ignored is bagginsbill, he only wants to sell his products.

Instead of resorting to personal attacks your time might be better spent reading more about gamma correction, you might learn something.

Here's a good place to start:

www.ypoart.com/tutorials/tone/gamma.php

Here we go again...... Please do correct the person who started it and not the one who responded. BB, as usual, attacks and insults people and someone else gets blamed for it. Happens every time.... as soon as the words Gamma Correction appear on this forum, you can sit and wait for BB to come in and insult someone and his buddies to come in and join him. BB resorted to personal attack first, so please do correct him for doing so and not someone else.

Kawecki, sorry that you've been insulted that way. Don't feel bad though, it happens to everyone who has a different opinion then BB has, so welcome to club if insulted ones :-)

Please quote the personal attack above. You made that up, as usual.

This is exactly what upsets me. People who do not understand the issue will instead argue that it isn't about the issue - it's about personality.

It isn't about personality. This is about math. If you can't make an argument from the standpoint of the math, then you should stay out of it.

Now that aelkima has done his usual part to elevate the TOS-skirting nonsense, I will once again have to appeal to the moderators.

Quote - Kawecki, sorry that you've been insulted that way. Don't feel bad though, it happens to everyone who has a different opinion then BB has, so welcome to club if insulted ones :-)

Don't worry, life is life and I am long time here. A news reporter that has no idea what an atom is and giving lessons about nuclear centrals or a general being a great expert in radar is nothing new for me....

Quote - > Quote - Kawecki, sorry that you've been insulted that way. Don't feel bad though, it happens to everyone who has a different opinion then BB has, so welcome to club if insulted ones :-)

Don't worry, life is life and I am long time here. A news reporter that has no idea what an atom is and giving lessons about nuclear centrals or a general being a great expert in radar is nothing new for me....

Great, good to hear that.....

everyone stop.

lets clear the air on a few things. and these are facts.

KAWECKI DOES NOT CARE ABOUT FACTS. this is a man that has argued Lighthouses before electricity did not exist - despite EVIDENCE. this man tried to prove that foghorns don't work.

for an encore here, he tried to tell everyone that Swords did not exist before the 16th century!

FACTS DO NOT MATTER TO HIM. stop trying to play his game!

as to aeilkema, he has a personal grudge against BB and poser in general. read his posts. he goes out of his way to be disruptive and cause trouble.

and this is NOT a personal attack. this is FACTS.

Quote - Now that aelkima has done his usual part to elevate the TOS-skirting nonsense, I will once again have to appeal to the moderators.

You hurl insults at his character and his intellect, you call him a "fucker" and then you appeal to the moderators?

Reality check: This is about light and dark in homemade pictures of Fairies and nude Vickies. Everyone needs to calm down a bit and get a grip.

Quote - > Quote - Now that aelkima has done his usual part to elevate the TOS-skirting nonsense, I will once again have to appeal to the moderators.

You hurl insults at his character and his intellect, you call him a "fucker" and then you appeal to the moderators?

Reality check: This is about light and dark in homemade pictures of Fairies and nude Vickies. Everyone needs to calm down a bit and get a grip.

erm you better just step away. this is something thats been ongoing for over a year.
and about time the Mods actually DID something about it.

Quote -
erm you better just step away. this is something thats been ongoing for over a year.
and about time the Mods actually DID something about it.

Bagginsbill said "It isn't about personality. This is about math." Clearly it IS personal, or he wouldn't have had such a hissy fit.

Dragging old feuds into new threads is a good way to ruin a forum and spread the discord into the community. It takes 2 to have an argument and it also takes 2 to make it turn personal.

I'm not sure that the 'fucker' part was directed at me at all...... I don't think it was.

I've got nothing personal against BB at all and I don't take his responses personal either. Everyone who disagrees with him in one way or another gets this treatment.

While it's not personal, I've got something against the ongoing abuse of people who do not agree with him. That is really getting out of hand and something should be done about that.

You can't just change the word "personality" into "personal" without changing the meaning. I didn't say it isn't about a person. Yes it is personal. I want the person known as kawecki to stop lying about me and to stop telling people incorrect information, so that I can stop wasting time helping people recover from being confused by him.

I impugned his intellect precisely because he has justified his behavior on the basis that he understood logarithms at age 9.

You don't get the history here, you don't understand what a time waster this is, and you're obviously interested in making this worse. You should stay out. I've written to the mods. Let them deal with it.

gamma correction is real and CGI experts use it in their renders. look at the proof. a forum only for CGI.

forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php

Quote - I'm not sure that the 'fucker' part was directed at me at all...... I don't think it was.

I've got nothing personal against BB at all. But I've got something against the ongoing abuse of people who do not agree with him. That is really getting out of hand and something should be done about that.

No it wasn't directed at you or him. By "this fucker" I meant this situation - this issue that causes a couple people to simply deny facts over and over every time they are presented.

You definitely are biased in this. You fail to see the thing that makes the situation not symmetrical - I am not lying, but kawecki accuses me of doing so. I am saying sRGB exists, is not made up by me, and is a standard that all monitors follow. Kawecki says that monitors are linear - already gamma corrected. This is a blatant fallacy, not a disagreement of opinion.

If you can't understand the words, then don't make a statement. Please.

No comments anymore and from now on I'll try to stay out a thread your posting in, unless I was there already.

As for monitors being gamma corrected or not..... all I know is that standard newer macs apply a gamma correction of 1.4 and that my video card gives me the option to apply GC as well. And yes..... I do have a monitor upstairs that has GC settings as well. You may not agree with that, but that's the way it is.....

Quote - No comments anymore and from now on I'll try to stay out a thread your posting in, unless I was there already.

As for monitors being gamma corrected or not..... all I know is that standard newer macs apply a gamma correction of 1.4 and that my video card gives me the option to apply GC as well. And yes..... I do have a monitor upstairs that has GC settings as well. You may not agree with that, but that's the way it is.....

You're confusing gamma adjustment with gamma correction.

You can adjust the gamma, but that doesn't mean your system becomse linear.

And the current standard for Macs is system gamma = 2.2. "System Gamma" means something different than gamma correction.

The 1.4 is where you have a partial gamma correction, leaving you with a system gamma of 1.8. If that's how you're configured, then to see images accurately, you still have to gamma correct them.

I never said it had to be 2.2, except when your system gamma is 2.2

All PC monitor system gamma is 2.2

Some Mac monitor system gamma is 1.8, but most modern ones are 2.2.

And all digital images on the web are encoded in sRGB format for accurate display on a monitor with a system gamma of 2.2.

If you do not convert an image to encode for a system gamma of 2.2, then you are not producing an accurate image.

These are facts.

Some people dismiss these and claim that I am intolerant of opinions.

It's not an opinion I argue with. I argue with FALLACY. There's a big difference. Don't pretend there is no difference between a differing opinion or a fallacy. A fallacy is when a statement is made that contradicts known facts.

If you believe the things I say come from me, and not from factual academic sources, and you have not actually checked this belief by reading those academic sources, then you're adding to the problem.

Either read and learn or stay out.

Quote - You don't get the history here, you don't understand what a time waster this is, and you're obviously interested in making this worse.

You don't know me, don't presume to know my intentions. I suggested that personal attacks are unacceptable. This otherwise useful thread is trashed because of 'issues' between 2 people, that pisses me off.

 Ugh, I haven't even read this whole thread, but I'm locking it. 

I hate to BLATANTLY take sides, but when someone proves OVER AND OVER the need for a technique, and shows the correct way to do it, OVER AND OVER, 

ATTACKING HIM FOR POSTING IT AND THEN TELLING HIM TO PROVE IT IS THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER SEEN.

I am absolutely tired of the unnecessary bickering and trolling over something as NOT LIFE THREATENING as Gamma Correction.  If you have a problem with the way someone presents a technique or theory, instead of attacking bagginsbill, OVER AND OVER and following him to every thread you can, PROVE him wrong if you can.  Write your own process.  Figure it out for yourself.  

In the end, I will suggest, if you don't like someone in the forum, STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM THEM.  I am going to HEAVILY petition to the programmers for an ignore button to go along with the report post button, but, until then, if you can't act like an adult, at least act like a teenager and IGNORE EACH OTHER.