Re: Dot Gain
Re: Dot Gain
- Subject: Re: Dot Gain
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:02:54 -0400
>
Roger Breton wrote:
>
> In the end, I think we all suffer from a "dot gain phobia", meaning we don't
>
> want any dot gain or when there is, we would like t to be different or
>
> smaller or larger, because we're so accustomed to se it one way or another.
>
>
We should understand that dot gain is good, not bad. If the dot gain of a
>
printing system was zero, then the CMYK values would represent reflectance,
>
which is the CMYK equivalent of a gamma = 1.0 RGB system. At 8-bits per
>
channel, this is not suitable for avoiding visual quantization
>
(posterization) defects.
>
>
We know that an RGB working space having gamma = 2.2 is more visually
>
uniform than one with gamma = 1.0. Similarly, some amount of dot gain (20 to
>
30%) redistributes the CMYK tone scales in a more visually uniform way.
>
>
This is good fortune because the gamma 2.2 that is part of the physics of a
>
video display system, and the 20+% dot gain that falls out of an offset
>
printing system, both help distribute tones more evenly visually and both
>
came about by "accident" (i.e. they were not specifically designed in for
>
that purpose).
Does that qualify for "serendipidity" in english?
Regards,
Roger Breton
Laval, Canada
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
| References: | |
| | >Re: Dot Gain (From: "Bruce J. Lindbloom" <email@hidden>) |