On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 03:34:45PM -0300, Guillermo Espertino (Gez) wrote: > El 12/11/12 12:50, Andrew Chadwick escribió: > >I'm not sure how things are supposed to be *composited* though. The > >above quote doesn't answer that. I would still very much like this to be > >linear :/ Perhaps you're still supposed to be explicit about compositing > >space in SVG. > > Every high end application out there seems to use linear, plus it's > quite easy to see the nasty effects of blending in nonlinear. > I don't know if there's a good reason behind keeping nonlinear > blending, although just blending images together without caring > about their colorspaces, assumming their gamma is 2.2 sounds like a > less intensive task than linearizing, blending and gamma correcting > back. > I'm not sure if this is still relevant today, but seemed like a > reasonable question to ask. :-)
I don't think speed of conversion is a big issue. If anything, it's the complexity of choosing between two different rendering paths. There is one good reason to keep non-linear light around: compatibility. You want to render exactly the image that the creator was looking at, not "improve" it. In the absence of a clear hint, my guess would be that sRGB gamma compositing was used. -- Martin Renold _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
