Re: Colormatch vs Adobe 98
Re: Colormatch vs Adobe 98
- Subject: Re: Colormatch vs Adobe 98
- From: "Bruce J. Lindbloom" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:11:19 -0600
Don Hutcheson wrote:
>
WORKING SPACE:
>
You absolutely SHOULD use a gamma 2.2 working space rather than 1.8, as 2.2
>
distributes tonal values more evenly throughout the visible lightness range
>
and preserves more shadow detail for later exhumation. In fact higher gammas
>
like 2.4, 2.6 or even 2.8 are theoretically closer to the ideal L* curve and
>
distribute the 256 levels even better from whites to blacks, but may
>
increase the risk of banding in lighter tones.
I would be interested in learning how you determined that such high gamma
values (2.4 to 2.8) are "theoretically closer to the ideal L* curve." I have
also studied this problem, but have come to a different conclusion. I found
the best fit gamma value to be smaller than those you give, and in fact, it
depends on how you define "best":
If "best" means minimizing the largest difference, then gamma = 2.1723
If "best" means minimizing the RMS difference, then gamma = 2.3243
So I think 2.2 is pretty close to ideal.
--
Bruce J. Lindbloom
www.brucelindbloom.com