Re: untagged RGB data
Re: untagged RGB data
- Subject: Re: untagged RGB data
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:25:12 EST
Andrew,
Its a really good point and question and one that confuses many users. Its
easy to forget that sRGB has two parts to it: 1) the encoding, and 2) the
rendering. Take digicam data for instance. Raw or linear sensor data
(input-referred) needs to be encoded as sRGB then made to look good (rendered) for display or
printing or the reference sRGB device (output referred). Simply encoding
input-referred sensor data as sRGB, while mechanically easy, isn't really sRGB
since the output-referred rendering is omitted. Its because of this rendering
step that we have so many flavors (different renderings) of sRGB. Different
camera modes or matrices render differently into sRGB. There are excellent
approaches which decouple the encoding from the rendering but they are not as widely
adopted.
Eric Walowit
Tahoe
In a message dated 12/19/2003 1:54:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
email@hidden writes:
Which brings me to another point (why we might need more than sRGB). On the
Canon's (and I think others), you have THREE different sRGB options. How
dumb is that? I'm under the impression that sRGB is sRGB (you can certainly
see the guts of what sRGB is when viewing the custom space in Photoshop
where you can view the white point, gamma and chromaticity values). So how
can the camera manufacturers allow users to pick not one but THREE different
sRGB settings? Anyway, it's possible that some modification of the values
above could produce better color appearance since we all know the cameras
are not producing sRGB (let alone 3 variants).
_______________________________________________
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.