[corysama]

Hmm... I'm quite familiar with gamma correction. For those who are not, I recently did an "Explain Like I'm Five" http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aeuyb/el...

But, my understanding is that for an image displayed 1-1 pixel-to-screen there is no intermediate math going on. So, there shouldn't be any opportunity for non-gamma-correct calculations to screw up the output.

Here's a nice example of non-gamma-correct browsers producing incorrect results after scaling an image: http://filmicgames.com/archives/354 also http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html But, in the SO question there is no scaling. So, I'm still confused about the difference in visual results between different applications directly displaying the image...

[Steuard]

Even when there's no scaling involved, gamma information embedded in an image can certainly be meaningful. Among other things, they can be used to correct for the fact that different OS's or devices can assume different default gamma factors. Without gamma correction, an image edited on a Mac might look different when viewed on a PC. If the image can tell the browser what gamma factor it was designed for, that problem can be avoided.

[corysama]

That's exactly what I was forgetting. Different systems assume different display gammas such as 1.8, 2.2 or sRGB (a mix of 1.0 and 2.4). Thanks!