Re: [ft-devel] gamma correction and FreeType

[another gol]

& why is that? 

If the correction turns a logarithmic gradient into a visibly linear one, how does that apply more to photos than contrasted vector artwork?

And if you're right, why even mention 2.2 or 1.8? I'm not the one who did in the first place.

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Alexei Podtelezhnikov <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:29 PM, another gol <address@hidden> wrote:

It could be that all of my monitors have a 1.4 gamma, but really, I never saw it looking wrong on any monitor, & there must be a reason Windows defaults to 1.4. I strongly suspect that the 2.2 standard gamma is either a myth or an old truth that doesn't apply anymore.seems to still be present.

Apples and oranges. What was developed for a generic smooth photograph (2.2) does not have to be applicable for the extreme contrast of glyph images (1.4 or what not). I do not get why we even have this discussion.