#Gamma/PAR rendering
12 messages in this thread
Greg, J.E., JKJ :
In regards to PAR rendering:
What Gamma setting are you using? I have been using the same setting as the
targa+ before which was 2.2 for file output but a recent project required a
very black background and to achieve this I had to shut the gamma off. How do
you feel about this?
Don,
I've got no problem with turning GAMMA off if the scene requires it. I've been
using 1.8 just like before, same gorgeous results. 🙂
-JE
According to the Matrox guys, 2.2 is better for video work and 1.8 for press
work. That as a general rule, but you have to take in consideration other
things like the state of your monitor(s), lighting conditions, etc… I have
disabled the gamma in photostyler and I'm now working with the MGA color
calibration feature, setting gamma to 1.8 and letting the KPCMS to do the rest
of the work in styler. This has solve me a few things, since I couldn't get
Gamma correction in Pagemaker, Painter and Corel. Maybe some Matrox MGA fan
could point me for a compatible calibration probe for the MGA (but looking at
Win4.0, it could be smarter to wait and see their implementation of the KPCMS).
BTW, to all the MGA users here, Matrox has available NOW the supplemental
PowerDrivers for all the MGA cards, including the rev2 chip. They include full
support for Windows NT and OS/2, WinSqueeze and ColorCalibration for 3.1 and
Dynaview drivers for Microstation. They are in the Matrox BBS.
ana /krazy images
I know lots of people say 2.2 for video, and that may be so on an RGB
(multisync) monitor, but I have found that 1.8 file gamma is the best average
for video. Otherwise stuff looks really hot and washed out.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
John,
>> I know lots of people say 2.2 for video… but I have found 1.8 file gamma
best average for video. <<
I just wrote Ana the same note. And I totally agree. 2.2 only works for really
light scenes without much contrast.
-JE
Ms. Karina, THEORETICALLY 2.2 is better for video output. This conforms with
linear output in NTSC. But it is my experience and considered opinion that 1.8
works better overall as 2.2 reduces the contrast relationship. This is for
video output for those that are following this.
(To ALL) Experiment with both and tell us what YOU think. For my style of
animation I like it best, but 2.2 is technically correct. With 1.8 the look is
cooler with better saturation, my preference. Technically this has no effect on
legal output.
So Ms. Karina you are now a Matrox fan. <g> Wonders never cease.
-JE
Hey Cassidy,
I'm not a Matrox fan! My soul is sold and Truevision has the contract 🙂 And
Kodak, and Digital, and my bank… <g>.
Yes, I like this board a lot. It's great. It's impressive. It's awesome. I'm a
fan of whatever serves me well and the MGA is doing an excellent work now. I
love the InterCal calibration system and I will probably will buy a probe to
complete my quest for perfect color accuracy (which is at 99%)
ana /krazy images
Hey Mata,
>> Yes, I like this board a lot. <<
Yeah, I think maybe I go with an MGA II. That JT is a pretty good salesman too.
<g>
-JE
Don:
We have been using Gamma of 2.2 for the PAR as well as the laser disk. On a
dark rendering, we will drop it to 1.8, but we very seldom turn it off
completely.
How is the new HEX file with the 5 second pre-roll working for you?
Greg Pyros
The new PAR.HEX file is no different. It's preroll is exactly 3.09 seconds,
the same as the old PAR.HEX. The two files are different size but work the
same. I also downloaded the new 1.8 ver of PAR.exe but haven't tested join
yet. 2.0 should be out soon, right? they're running out of ver numbers. <G>
We just tested it here and it does pre roll 5 seconds. I will check to make
sure that the right version is up on the board. You would need to re-run
PARINIT to have it take effect.
>> You would need to re-run PARINIT to have it take effect.
Now you tell me! GregP. didn't tell me this either. I'll have to go check it
out right now.
I'm back!
Bingo! I ran PARINIT and it now works 5 sec. on the money.
Thanks