LCD Screen. Set LWF Gamma to 2.2 or 1.8?

[Morne]

Hi all

So for LWF most people (including me) and various tutorials on the subject use a gamma of 2.2. I read somewhere that LCD screens are closer to 1.8 than the old 2.2 CRT screens. Somewhere along the line we all just stuck to 2.2. Is this messing up our workflow and to be "correct", should we be using 1.8 instead?

[glorybound]

you know, once I stopped listening to everyone on this topic my scenes starting looking a lot better. If it looks better at 1.8 then use it, if not try 2.2. each scene is unique and requires the artist eye, in my opinion.

[Ramsay]

After a lot of experimenting I find in most cases 2.2 for interiors and 1.8 for exteriors works well for me. I don't really care what people say is technically correct, I think it's far more important to have my images looking good. If that means using a gamma of 15.2875 then so what... is the client going to know?

[Janosik]

heh and for what is in max that grey rectangle to guess what gamma is ok directly on each monitor separately .... i heard that two rectangles MUST fade into one color and than is gamma ok directly on your monitor , ofcourse imput can stay at 2,2

[jujubee]

I don't really care what people say is technically correct, I think it's far more important to have my images looking good. If that means using a gamma of 15.2875 then so what... is the client going to know?

LWF is important if you're working in video/animations. However, nothing says it's necessary.

A correct method is also useful when working with really anal interior designers that specify Pantone and other color swatches.

Beyond that, I agree it's the end-result which ultimately matters. If you really don't like LWF, you're more than welcome to go back to the default method - it's a pain in the ass.

[Morne]

If you really don't like LWF, you're more than welcome to go back to the default method - it's a pain in the ass.

Just to be clear, are you saying LWF is a pain or the old default method?

[Ramsay]

LWF is important if you're working in video/animations.

How come? I'm not disagreeing with you I just don't know why it would be any more improtant than producing images? I've worked on loads of animations in the past with out LWF and they have looked great!

[Neilg]

There is absolutley no difference between a still put through photoshop and a sequence of frames with some post effects on.

[dlparisi]

Hi all

So for LWF most people (including me) and various tutorials on the subject use a gamma of 2.2. I read somewhere that LCD screens are closer to 1.8 than the old 2.2 CRT screens. Somewhere along the line we all just stuck to 2.2. Is this messing up our workflow and to be "correct", should we be using 1.8 instead?

AFAIK, using a gamma 2.2 adjustment also roughly corresponds to the sRGB (etc.) gamma curve that is embedded in most image formats and is used when the bitmap is read into the max scene. The 2.2 (or 1.8 ) from the Max gamma setting will be used for input of the bitmap but the VRay gamma setting will be used for display of rendering on the monitor. If you have linear space bitmaps (i.e., not sRGB) then you can leave the "Affect Bitmaps" option unchecked and just worry about the gamma in the VRay color mapping rollout. So to answer your question I think you should keep it at 2.2 but be sure to have your monitor calibrated and corrected to a 2.2 gamma. I think this is the best way to ensure what you see on your screen is what others "should" see on theirs.

I may be confused about the specifics of this but I've been working this way for several years on both CRT and LCD monitors and I don't really think about it now - it's just how I work (it's definitely not a "full" linear workflow since I bake in the gamma but I believe its helped out my images immensely). I couldn't go back to the old way.