I bang it around between 2.2 and 2.5 for checking robustness. I actually prefer towards the higher point for recreational viewing : depending on display.
Actually it would be easier just to stick with 2.2 rigidly as its the oft quoted standard video display gamma. I guess you have to factor in older material though.
In terms of linearising the "proper" way is to throw the inverse of the rec.709 transfer curve at it. The notional display gamma shouldn't come into it. Maybe linearising with a simple gamma should be termed "flattening" instead of "linearising".
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspears /forum/post/17462915
One thing to point out is that 709 does not define the display gamma. This is something that sRGB does do.
Charles Poynton is trying to get a get everyone to agree on a display gamma. He is currently proposing 2.35 as the standard.
I bang it around between 2.2 and 2.5 for checking robustness. I actually prefer towards the higher point for recreational viewing : depending on display.
Actually it would be easier just to stick with 2.2 rigidly as its the oft quoted standard video display gamma. I guess you have to factor in older material though.
In terms of linearising the "proper" way is to throw the inverse of the rec.709 transfer curve at it. The notional display gamma shouldn't come into it. Maybe linearising with a simple gamma should be termed "flattening" instead of "linearising".