Re: [Algorithms] Gamma correction an HDR images?

[Jonathan B. <jo...@nu...>]

>Sure, except for 1.0 you'd need more than 8-bits per component to get
>reasonable image quality at the expected dynamic range of the monitor.
>Gamma is there to fix this problem.  An intuitive way to think of it is
>like perceptual compression/encoding.  The reason monitors are not at
>gamma 1.0 is because the human visual system isn't either.  It's really
>hard to tell the difference between incrementally brighter pixels at the
>bright end of the spectrum, but pretty easy at the dark end, so gamma
>2.2 lets you use more bits at the dark end.
>  
>

Which is also a good point, what I was saying about monitors outputting 
at gamma=1 ideally if they actually had the power to produce enough 
dynamic range physically, sort of comes from some worldview of 
non-scarcity where it doesn't matter how many bits per pixel you are 
storing. Which doesn't seem to be true yet, or for a while (since we 
keep raising resolutions and don't even have enough video RAM for full 
HDR rendering on one of the next-generation consoles, without doing icky 
tiling, ahem ahem.)