Re: Questions about the UI at 1.8 gamma
Re: Questions about the UI at 1.8 gamma
- Subject: Re: Questions about the UI at 1.8 gamma
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 05:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
John,
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:58:25 -0700, John Zimmerer wrote:
>
>
Danny,
>
>
According to Microsoft, "bright" is anything greater than 64 lux. That
>
doesn't take much -- 64 lux is a little brighter than the light output
>
of a single 35W Solux bulb placed about 10 feet away from the front of
>
display. Not many people work in a room that dark.
Maybe not that dark but certainly not as bright as you may think (for pros). I
personally use a dimmer environment closer to the sRGB target environment. If you
have followed the trends in "standard" room illumination levels, you will see
that they went up quite rapidly in the last 20 years. You just have to go to a
large surface store, or to a circa 1990 office buiding to judge that. On the
other hand, there has been recent adjustment for office work where for both
energy consumption and ergonomic reasons the illumination levels are not as
harsh, light banks are being shut down.
>
From the W3C sRGB page:
>
"For optimal results, we recommend using the encoding viewing
>
environment when viewing sRGB encoded images. We also recognize that
>
this is quite different from typical viewing environment."
>
>
And later:
>
"The encoding ambient illuminance level is intended to be
>
representative of a dim viewing environment. Note that the illuminance
>
is at least an order of magnitude lower than average outdoor levels and
>
approximately one-third of the typical ambient illuminance level."
You know at lot of people who use their computer outdoors?
That statement is there to give a sense of scale, not to be used literally.
As for ambient, it is a moving target, depending on application.
>
A 2.2 encoding and a 2.2 display gamma doesn't necessarily result in a
>
linear system gamma. The viewing conditions, display card LUT, black
>
level and other factors are also in play.
>
JZ
>
"necessarily" is the key word here. As long as you want to find reasons for
non-compatibility, the science of color perception is wide and complex enough to
find them. My comment was more in trying to bring more compatibility between 1.8
and 2.2 file encoding gammas while keeping the Apple (bright) viewing conditions.
Some of the effects are more important than others. For example, many non-pro
users with uncalibrated monitors will never notice a black level misadjustment
but they will notice an overall darker or brighter image due to non-matched file
encoding gamma.
Your responses to all people in this thread show that at least you are concerned
by the subject, and I appreciate that you take the time, even on weekends, to
defend your position when confronted by all.
But are you alone in the fort ? ;-)
Danny Pascale
>
Resources:
>
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB
>
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae409.cfm
>
http://www.soluxtli.com/edu4.htm
>
>
> My comment:
>
> If Apple designs its system for bright environment, so be it (I am
>
> curious to
>
> know how many pro are working in such an environment, but that is yet
>
> another
>
> subject). However, it would still be possible to have an overall
>
> linear system
>
> gamma by using a 2.2 file encoding gamma AND by changing instead the
>
> LUT gamma to
>
> match the bright environment criteria. At least, when someone would
>
> look at the
>
> image in a dimmer PC environment, what is assumed by sRGB, the image
>
> would look
>
> the same.
>
>
>
> Danny Pascale
Danny Pascale
email@hidden
Web site: www.BabelColor.com
BabelColor,an innovative tool to compare and translate
data between RGB spaces.
_______________________________________________
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.