Re: Gamma values on Windows XP
Re: Gamma values on Windows XP
- Subject: Re: Gamma values on Windows XP
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:45:14 -0700
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 06:07 PM,"Karl Petersson"
<email@hidden> writes:
Thank you to you guys for the help.
I will be looking into all these advices and get back to you, but I
will
have to ask a further question regarding 1.8 being a dinosaur and 2.2
being
the way to go. The thing is this that we are producing a newspaper
that are
being printed elsewhere and we are using their profile and this is
created
under the conditions gamma 1.8, colormatch RGB and 5000 k settings,
but are
you still saying that I should use a 2.2 g setting?
First and foremost, it's not going to make that big of a difference
because regardless of what gamma you calibrate your display to,
Photoshop will use display compensation to compensate for the actual
tone reproduction of your display.
Second, I just don't see any benefit to gamma 1.8 anymore, when it
comes to a default display tone reproduction. Some displays may have
better performance at 1.8 gamma (probably not that many though,
although I don't have any empirical data to suggest how many or how
few), more will have better performance at gamma 2.2. Regardless, I
feel display compensation is the way to deal with difference between
image space gamma, and display gamma. That's what the major
applications do already, and OS X is within feet (or maybe yards, but
still getting ever closer) to providing display compensation on a
consistent application-wide basis.
In theory, changing the display as little as is necessary to calibrate
it will provide a better performing display. Maybe if we had 10-bit
DACs in display cards this would be less of an issue, but I've seen
calibration induced posterization using gamma 1.8. Therefore, I just
don't take the chance, even if it were calculated at being a small risk.
Using a gamma 1.8 based *editing* space on the other hand for certain
kinds of editing is still up for debate.
Since it is a newspaper
I am acctually using the paper for tests to see and I will be printing
test
of these new conditions within the next days. I have read for some time
that 2.2 and 6500k is creates a better condition but why really?
For practical use, I think we could flip a coin on gamma 1.8 versus
gamma 2.2. For more serious use, I see more weight on the gamma 2.2
side of the argument: for display calibration, reduced likelihood of
calibration induced posterization, which I haven't yet seen when
calibrating using gamma 2.2; and for editing in 8-bits/channel spaces
where gamma 2.2 shifts more bits to shadows to better retain shadow
detail.
On the white point issue, most people seem to find 6500K works better
for them most likely because it provides more display luminosity, which
is arguably more important than getting a monitor set to a specific
color temperature. But the bottom line is, what's working best for you
in you environment. If that's 5000K great. If it's 9300K, that's weird,
but if it's working for someone I probably wouldn't argue the point
(although I'd wonder why it works).
As far as
I have understod is that when I am working in a webprint for newsprint
condition there are advantages with 5000k/1.8g but what I am not really
sure of right now :-)
Bottom line is to use what works for your environment and equipment.
Try gamma 2.2 and white point 6500K and see if you like it better.
Regardless of what you select, the resulting display profile contains
this information and it's being compensated for by the major apps.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
---------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0201773406)
_______________________________________________
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.