Sign in to follow this  
user88

DX11 [DX11] Why we need sRGB back buffer

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

after reading a couple of resources in web about Gamma Correction I still feel confused.

 

In my experiment pixel shader simply outputs linear gradient to backbuffer.

 

 - First case: backbuffer format is not sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted without any modifications:

[attachment=22107:ng.jpg]

 

 - Second case: backbuffer format is sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted without any modifications:

[attachment=22104:g1.jpg]

 

 - Third case: backbuffer format is sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted with correction of pow(u, 1/2.2):

[attachment=22105:g1div2.2.jpg]

 

 - Fourth case: backbuffer format is sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted with correction of pow(u, 2.2):

[attachment=22106:g2.2.jpg]

 

As you see, first and last results are almost the same. So, my question is why we need sRGB backbuffers plus modifying final output pixel shader if we can simply use non-sRGB texture? The result is almost the same:

[attachment=22108:pixcmp.jpg]

Edited by user88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, in this simple case it can look like same, but whole point of linear vs gamma is when it came to calculations, e.g. when values are multiplied/added together. Normally you would think that 1 + 1 = 2 and 1*1 = 1, e.g when you double light intensity or blend two lights together, result will have doubled brightness, but gamma is not linear so 1 +1 can be 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ashaman73, as I understood you are talking about sRGB color space and HDR, but my question is about advantage sRGB backbuffer + pow(u, 2.2) over non-sRGB format  + direct output.

 

What I can guess from comparison image (last one in my first post) the advantage is in precision of Gamma curve applied to final image. With sRGB backbuffer + pow(u, 2.2) it is more precise. Right? Are there any other advantages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the article "The Importance of Being Linear"?  It does a pretty good job of explaining why you need gamma correction, including the situations when you should use it and when you shouldn't.  I applaud the OP's willingness to experiment, but in this case it seems like you don't get the high level concept just yet - so please try to read through that article and come to a mathematic reasoning for doing this and then the correct operation will be quite clear.

 

Hi Jason,

 

I have read this article (anyway thank you for a link) and understand the mathematic reasoning of Gamma Correction process. All is clear for me with sRGB images sampling and correction for further linear calculations. All intermediate calculations should be outputted to buffers with any correction. That is also clear for me.

 

The misunderstanding actually is with sRGB backbuffer. I thought that sRGB backbuffer is like JPEG in sRGB color space, meaning that all values in sRGB backbuffer are already Gamma Corrected (pow(value, 1/2.2)). If so, then final color values should outputted with pow(value, 1/2.2) correction. But no, it seems the sRGB backbuffer is the opposite of what I thought. Furthermore, final color value should be outputted with pow(value, 1/2.2) correction for non-sRGB backbuffers, right?

Edited by user88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I thought that sRGB backbuffer is like JPEG in sRGB color space, meaning that all values in sRGB buffer are already Gamma Corrected (pow(value, 2.2)). If so, then final color values should outputted with pow(value, 2.2) correction. But no, it seems the sRGB backbuffer is the opposite of what I thought.
No, the display/monitor itself does the pow(value,2.2) itself, in the display hardware.

If you do the pow(value,2.2) yourself, then you end with seeing pow(pow(value,2.2),2.2) after the display emits the picture biggrin.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I thought that sRGB backbuffer is like JPEG in sRGB color space, meaning that all values in sRGB buffer are already Gamma Corrected (pow(value, 2.2)). If so, then final color values should outputted with pow(value, 2.2) correction. But no, it seems the sRGB backbuffer is the opposite of what I thought.
No, the display/monitor itself does the pow(value,2.2) itself, in the display hardware.

If you do the pow(value,2.2) yourself, then you end with seeing pow(pow(value,2.2),2.2) after the display emits the picture biggrin.png

 

I mean 1/2.2 not 2.2. Already corrected my previous post. Sorry for that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

after reading a couple of resources in web about Gamma Correction I still feel confused.

 

In my experiment pixel shader simply outputs linear gradient to backbuffer.

 

 - First case: backbuffer format is not sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted without any modifications:

attachicon.gifng.jpg

 

 - Second case: backbuffer format is sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted without any modifications:

attachicon.gifg1.jpg

 

 - Third case: backbuffer format is sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted with correction of pow(u, 1/2.2):

attachicon.gifg1div2.2.jpg

 

 - Fourth case: backbuffer format is sRGB, value of linear gradient is outputted with correction of pow(u, 2.2):

attachicon.gifg2.2.jpg

 

As you see, first and last results are almost the same. So, my question is why we need sRGB backbuffers plus modifying final output pixel shader if we can simply use non-sRGB texture? The result is almost the same:

attachicon.gifpixcmp.jpg

 

I'd like to point out that that only your second image is "correct", that is because your performed the "manual" conversion incorrectly. Maybe an older post of mine can clear up any lingering confusion. It's not complicated, but it trips people up often. To answer the question, the advantage of a sRGB renderbuffer is that it performs the actual linear to sRGB conversion, not a gamma approximation, and by using it instead of a pow() instruction you are less likely to make a mistake as you did. wink.png

 

Erm, if the backbuffer is sRGB then you shouldn't be providing ANY changes to the values you are writing out; you should be writing linear values and allowing the hardware to do the conversion to sRGB space when it writes the data.

The correct versions are either;
linear maths in shader => sRGB buffer
or
linear maths in shader => pow(2.2) => non-sRGB buffer 8bit/channel image

Anything else is wrong.
(Also, keep in mind sRGB isn't just a pow(2.2) curve, it has a toe at the low end to 'boost' the dark colours).

 

That should be:

 

linear maths in shader => pow(1 / 2.2) => non-sRGB buffer 8bit/channel image

 

And that is only correct insofar that it is a close-ish approximation to sRGB.

Edited by Chris_F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

linear maths in shader => pow(1 / 2.2) => non-sRGB buffer 8bit/channel image


Yeah, my bad, if I was doing it by hand in shader code I'd have double checked that, but as I'd normally leave things linear (16f or 10rgb2a) or have sRGB source/dest I tend not to hold the number in my brain ;)

Anyway, post corrected now so anyone finding it isn't confused smile.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, with implementation of Gamma Correction as well as backbuffer sRGB format all is clear for me now.

 

Great post, Chris:

 

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/652795-clarifications-gamma-correction-srgb/#entry5127278

 

Hodgman, your post also was very helpful, thanks. One point is not clear for me. It is about "mathematically linear" and "perceptually linear" things:

The reason you think the first image is 'correct' is because "mathematically linear" is not the same as "perceptually linear". In order to perform correct lighting and shading calculations, or to be able to reproduce the same photograph that we captured earlier, we need all the data to be mathematically linear.

 

  - Why the linear gradient that i can see on screen looks like non-linear with gamma correction (second case in my first post)? I compared it visually with linear gradient that i have made in PhotoShop. Same width in pixels. On screen looks different. Is there some PhotoShop trick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never used gamma correction thing and I'd like to make sure I understand correctly.

I have to use SRGB diffuse/color textures, non-SRGB normal textures, SRGB backbuffer to make it gamma correct?

 

I've tried to compare results and here's what I've got.

SRGB backbuffer:

[attachment=22203:Screenshot 2014-06-18 13.01.56.png]

Non-SRGB backbuffer:

[attachment=22204:Screenshot 2014-06-18 13.02.04.png]

 

With texture:

SRGB backbuffer and texture:

[attachment=22205:Screenshot 2014-06-18 13.27.31.png]

Non-SRGB backbuffer and non-SRGB texture:

[attachment=22206:Screenshot 2014-06-18 13.27.56.png]

Texture source: http://minecraftworld.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/earth_flat_map.jpg

 

So SRGB variants are correct ones?

Edited by Zaoshi Kaba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that the textures were painted on an sRGB monitor, and you're viewing the results on an sRGB monitor, then yep.

 

n.b. the sharper termination line in the first sphere matches real life physics much more than the soft gradient in the second image too biggrin.png

Why the linear gradient that i can see on screen looks like non-linear with gamma correction (second case in my first post)?

The way that us humans perceive light is not linear.

 

e.g. If you're in a room lit by one light bulb, and you turn on a second bulb, physically/objectively/mathematically speaking the room is now twice as bright, but subjectively a person won't say that it looks twice as bright (their perceptions don't match the objective truth). You might have to turn on 10 light bulbs before the person says that the room is twice as bright as it was initially.

Likewise, if you get a gradient that looks linear/smooth and then measure it using a light-meter, you'll find that it's probably logarithmically curved!

 

I'm not sure how photoshop creates gradients - but there are several "smoothing" options from what I remember, to produce results that are perceived as looking nice.

 

The point of "being gamma correct" is mostly so that we can match how physics/maths works. When we add two lights on top of each other, we need them to behave the way they work in the real world.

Edited by Hodgman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Partner Spotlight

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      627642
    • Total Posts
      2978354
  • Similar Content

    • By evelyn4you
      hi,
      i have read very much about the binding of a constantbuffer to a shader but something is still unclear to me.
      e.g. when performing :   vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer,  slot )
       is the buffer bound
      a.  to the VertexShaderStage
      or
      b. to the VertexShader that is currently set as the active VertexShader
      Is it possible to bind a constantBuffer to a VertexShader e.g. VS_A and keep this binding even after the active VertexShader has changed ?
      I mean i want to bind constantbuffer_A  to VS_A, an Constantbuffer_B to VS_B  and  only use updateSubresource without using setConstantBuffer command every time.

      Look at this example:
      SetVertexShader ( VS_A )
      updateSubresource(buffer_A)
      vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer_A,  slot_A )
      perform drawcall       ( buffer_A is used )

      SetVertexShader ( VS_B )
      updateSubresource(buffer_B)
      vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer_B,  slot_A )
      perform drawcall   ( buffer_B is used )
      SetVertexShader ( VS_A )
      perform drawcall   (now which buffer is used ??? )
       
      I ask this question because i have made a custom render engine an want to optimize to
      the minimum  updateSubresource, and setConstantbuffer  calls
       
       
       
       
       
    • By noodleBowl
      I got a quick question about buffers when it comes to DirectX 11. If I bind a buffer using a command like:
      IASetVertexBuffers IASetIndexBuffer VSSetConstantBuffers PSSetConstantBuffers  and then later on I update that bound buffer's data using commands like Map/Unmap or any of the other update commands.
      Do I need to rebind the buffer again in order for my update to take effect? If I dont rebind is that really bad as in I get a performance hit? My thought process behind this is that if the buffer is already bound why do I need to rebind it? I'm using that same buffer it is just different data
       
    • By Rockmover
      I am really stuck with something that should be very simple in DirectX 11. 
      1. I can draw lines using a PC (position, colored) vertices and a simple shader just fine.
      2. I can draw 3D triangles using PCN (position, colored, normal) vertices just fine (even transparency and SpecularBlinnPhong shaders).
       
      However, if I'm using my 3D shader, and I want to draw my PC lines in the same scene how can I do that?
       
      If I change my lines to PCN and pass them to the 3D shader with my triangles, then the lighting screws them all up.  I only want the lighting for the 3D triangles, but no SpecularBlinnPhong/Lighting for the lines (just PC). 
      I am sure this is because if I change the lines to PNC there is not really a correct "normal" for the lines.  
      I assume I somehow need to draw the 3D triangles using one shader, and then "switch" to another shader and draw the lines?  But I have no clue how to use two different shaders in the same scene.  And then are the lines just drawn on top of the triangles, or vice versa (maybe draw order dependent)?  
      I must be missing something really basic, so if anyone can just point me in the right direction (or link to an example showing the implementation of multiple shaders) that would be REALLY appreciated.
       
      I'm also more than happy to post my simple test code if that helps as well!
       
      THANKS SO MUCH IN ADVANCE!!!
    • By Reitano
      Hi,
      I am writing a linear allocator of per-frame constants using the DirectX 11.1 API. My plan is to replace the traditional constant allocation strategy, where most of the work is done by the driver behind my back, with a manual one inspired by the DirectX 12 and Vulkan APIs.
      In brief, the allocator maintains a list of 64K pages, each page owns a constant buffer managed as a ring buffer. Each page has a history of the N previous frames. At the beginning of a new frame, the allocator retires the frames that have been processed by the GPU and frees up the corresponding space in each page. I use DirectX 11 queries for detecting when a frame is complete and the ID3D11DeviceContext1::VS/PSSetConstantBuffers1 methods for binding constant buffers with an offset.
      The new allocator appears to be working but I am not 100% confident it is actually correct. In particular:
      1) it relies on queries which I am not too familiar with. Are they 100% reliable ?
      2) it maps/unmaps the constant buffer of each page at the beginning of a new frame and then writes the mapped memory as the frame is built. In pseudo code:
      BeginFrame:
          page.data = device.Map(page.buffer)
          device.Unmap(page.buffer)
      RenderFrame
          Alloc(size, initData)
              ...
              memcpy(page.data + page.start, initData, size)
          Alloc(size, initData)
              ...
              memcpy(page.data + page.start, initData, size)
      (Note: calling Unmap at the end of a frame prevents binding the mapped constant buffers and triggers an error in the debug layer)
      Is this valid ? 
      3) I don't fully understand how many frames I should keep in the history. My intuition says it should be equal to the maximum latency reported by IDXGIDevice1::GetMaximumFrameLatency, which is 3 on my machine. But, this value works fine in an unit test while on a more complex demo I need to manually set it to 5, otherwise the allocator starts overwriting previous frames that have not completed yet. Shouldn't the swap chain Present method block the CPU in this case ?
      4) Should I expect this approach to be more efficient than the one managed by the driver ? I don't have meaningful profile data yet.
      Is anybody familiar with the approach described above and can answer my questions and discuss the pros and cons of this technique based on his experience ? 
      For reference, I've uploaded the (WIP) allocator code at https://paste.ofcode.org/Bq98ujP6zaAuKyjv4X7HSv.  Feel free to adapt it in your engine and please let me know if you spot any mistakes
      Thanks
      Stefano Lanza
       
    • By Matt Barr
      Hey all. I've been working with compute shaders lately, and was hoping to build out some libraries to reuse code. As a prerequisite for my current project, I needed to sort a big array of data in my compute shader, so I was going to implement quicksort as a library function. My implementation was going to use an inout array to apply the changes to the referenced array.

      I spent half the day yesterday debugging in visual studio before I realized that the solution, while it worked INSIDE the function, reverted to the original state after returning from the function.

      My hack fix was just to inline the code, but this is not a great solution for the future.  Any ideas? I've considered just returning an array of ints that represents the sorted indices.
  • Popular Now