-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
SRGB gamma correction #2440
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
SRGB gamma correction #2440
Conversation
I would probably have to manually go through the reflect/bloom textures to tweak them. |
|
I think the issue author meant that they wanted a gamma slider, like in Minecraft Legacy Console |
|
When it is dark, our eyes also see everything less saturated, because the color cones for red,green,blue work worse, but the color cones gray are still functioning. I would even go so far as to say, that an image, being made black-white, can create the feeling of night without having to dim it. |
Well SRGB is gamma=2.2, if we add a slider for it, that doesn't solve the artistic problems with it.
We could give that a try. |
Well, but together with the fog that's basically everything that was affected by gamma correction. |
This is an interesting one. So far placing a lightsource in broad daylight (or in a brightly lit surface cave) had no effect at all. With this patch placing a torch or another light source actually makes things (slightly) brighter. Now, since the peak brightness is capped at one, this mostly affects the shadow areas, this does make the ambient occlusion weaker in these areas. But for dimmer light sources like the torch the difference is small and for brighter light source it seems reasonable that the ambient occlusion is reduced when the light is coming from multiple source. This would help distinguish weak lights in a bright night (as noticed in #2440 (comment)) @ikabod-kee @careeoki I would like your opinions here as well. I decided to make this an independent PR in case #2440 is rejected, since I think this is a decent improvement either way. <img width="1286" height="748" alt="Screenshot at 2025-12-29 12-56-27" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/788d6563-5711-4818-8e68-2fee633f4b71" /> <img width="1286" height="748" alt="Screenshot at 2025-12-29 12-56-45" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ab76a938-ce29-4aa8-a966-547cea468e70" /> <img width="1286" height="748" alt="Screenshot at 2025-12-29 12-56-30" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a0a76a5d-b868-4502-9948-c6cfc7806e61" />
702e104 to
015614e
Compare
|
Instead of only focusing on the problems, maybe you could tell me what (if any) you like about this gamma correction PR. |














fixes #116
@careeoki @ikabod-kee please check if there are any problems with this artistically, I tried to convert all the values, such that no artistic changes are needed. However I may have missed things and there are also some notable differences:
Please tell me if I should try fixing any of these.
Remaining work: