Comment by overgard
11 years ago
These graphs make things look more official, but the fact that he's judging luminosity in sRGB (a non-linear space) makes me think they're basically rubbish.
I mean, yeah, SSAO is a gimmicky trick... but so what?
11 years ago
These graphs make things look more official, but the fact that he's judging luminosity in sRGB (a non-linear space) makes me think they're basically rubbish.
I mean, yeah, SSAO is a gimmicky trick... but so what?
Sean Barrett is a long-time expert and well-known developer in the area of computer graphics.
If you had bothered to read the article, the author attempts to address that concern:
But we can at least understand how we're perceiving the pictures, since they're being displayed as (hopefully) sRGB. They may not reflect reality that well, but we can at least determine the degree to which the numbers in the pictures actually are darkening, and the degree to which it's a perceptual effect we get.
I know who he is. Hey we can disagree with experts on the Internet. Neat huh.
I did read that part. Just because he acknowledged it doesn't make the data any better. He mentions that you can get a relative idea of the darkening, but the reason gamma correction is done in the first place is because the perception is different between screens -- and browsers don't really properly gamma correct images.
I don't even disagree with him - Ssao is unrealistic. I just don't get what all this "data" is meant to prove. Nobody is claiming it's realistic, it's just aesthetically nicer than just plain direct lighting (in some people's opinion)