The Port asks whether the blend is evaluated on sRGB-encoded values or linearised and re-encoded. It is answered by one register field I already log, and the answer is the same on every draw of two full captures. RB_COLOR_INFO.color_format is k_8_8_8_8 (0) on 2402/2402 splash draws and 33779/33791 draws of the boot-through-title capture; the other 12 are k_32_FLOAT and k_16_16_FLOAT and are not colour passes. k_8_8_8_8_GAMMA (1) appears ZERO times, and color_exp_bias is 0 everywhere so nothing stands in for a gamma either. The mechanism is Canary's own source, not our inference: k_8_8_8_8_GAMMA is the ONLY colour format around which a piecewise-linear gamma<->linear conversion is applied (spirv_shader_translator.h:510 PWLGammaToLinear / LinearToPWLGamma, render_target_cache.h:720, dxbc_shader_translator_om.cc). With k_8_8_8_8 there is none, so the blender operates on the stored values as they are. So a renderer that linearises before blending and re-encodes after is doing a different operation -- and the difference is gamma-shaped and exactly zero on unblended pixels, which is the divergence signature the port reports. Also renamed my units-per-second pre-registration off the 'h4' prefix: the Port's BLOCKED.md numbers this blend-space question H4 and two different H4s in one corpus is how a citation goes wrong.
2.6 KiB
2.6 KiB