Lab is not a good working space (was RE: Preview RGB space versus RGB working space)
Lab is not a good working space (was RE: Preview RGB space versus RGB working space)
- Subject: Lab is not a good working space (was RE: Preview RGB space versus RGB working space)
- From: "Vanderlinden, Thomas M." <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:32:32 -0400
Chris Cox - - - -
Though it has been "covered before", I would appreciate reading
(perhaps as brief bullet points, so you needn't devote much time to it)
your "reasons why Lab is not a good working space."
And could you comment further on
>Also, ICC LAB is not infinite,
>and many RGB working spaces include colors ouside of ICC LAB.
Does this mean that there are "colors" within an RGB space
that are not visible to the eye?
- - -Tom Vanderlinden
Bridgeport National Bindery
email@hidden
>
Message: 9
>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:25:01 -0700
>
To: email@hidden
>
From: Chris Cox <email@hidden>
>
Subject: Re: Preview RGB space versus RGB working space
>
>
>What you don't get is profile independence, so if you loose the
>
>definition of the pixels, you loose the workflow. Nor gamut
>
>independence, since in converting into an RGB working space for long
>
>term archiving and repurposing, the film gamut is cropped to that RGB
>
>working space, and that is not the case if it stays in Lab where you
>
>can take it to hifi color losslessly, come the day that we have file
>
>format support for + 4 color workflows (and can compare film gamuts
>
>and hifi press gamuts in 3D in the up and coming Seattle-based Disney
>
>Studios of gamut comparisons -:)).
>
>
LAB is not lossless - needing more bits than most RGB spaces to get
>
the same accuracy.
>
Also, ICC LAB is not infinite, and many RGB working spaces include
>
colors ouside of ICC LAB.
>
>
There are many reasons (which we've covered before) why LAB is not a
>
good working space.
>
>
Chris