Ben Waggoner wrote:
> Well, while it could be better, this limited gamma correction support is
> certainly better than nothing. Before, a given file just assumed a gamma of
> 1.8 or 2.2 or 2.5 or something. Now at least we get some kind of automatic
> correction. This is useful for me.
Selfish friday night? When only 5%, as you mentioned, adjust their gamma correction -
why should a QT "gamma correction support" be "better than nothing"? For what 5%?
The kind of automatic correction has been available before MPEG-4. Just by not-touching
the monitors default settings. The way QT screws itself into gamma with MPEG-4 is,
again, just as rude as REAL.
ot
> >> Well, I'd say only 5% of users have ever changed their gamma settings.
> >
> > ... and this 5% might be the producers. How should I judge my published MPEG-4
> > as long
> > it is doing gamma behind my screens?
>
> On stock computers running default gamma. Which is a pain.
>
> >> What about hoping for a user-side gamma setting in the QT player itself?
> >>
> >> Ugh. That's like putting a hue control on a consumer television - users
> >> are more likely to make things worse than better.
> >
> > Not at all. If you have to produce both print and screen results you might be
> > wellknown
> > happy about the \real\ individual gamma setting for particular applications
> > i.e.
> > Photoshop, FreeHand. InDesign ...
> >
> > What's all about an at least gamma on/off button in QTs MPEG-4?
>
> That'd be a nice encode-time option.
_______________________________________________
quicktime-talk mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/quicktime-talk
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
