Re: Evaluation of Timo
Re: Evaluation of Timo
- Subject: Re: Evaluation of Timo
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:47:39 -0700
- Thread-topic: Evaluation of Timo
In a message dated 7/20/07 4:59 PM, H. Teeuwen wrote:
> <http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=24161005&postID=698779580077
> 285965> At 11:27 AM <> , fricc [Fabio Riccardi]
> <http://www.blogger.com/profile/13393684586256776000> said...
>
> Andrew,
>
> yes I know that Timo's stuff is controversial, but I think that he's spot on
> on most of what he's talking about. I'm an engineer (I have a master degree
> in EE and a PhD in CS) and I've been doing signal processing in many
> different fields for all my life, long enough to understand that gamma
> adjusted color spaces are not good for serious image processing.
>
> Adobe seems to have gotten that too and I hear that Lightroom uses a linear
> color space internally too.
Fabio is an engineer, and the best he can do is say that he "hears"...?
This sort of claim sounds suspiciously like fishing for dubious validation
based on not much more than hearsay. Kind of lazy, actually.
If I properly understand Andrew Rodney's oft-repeated description (hey, at
least I have the excuse that *I* am *not* an engineer...), Lightroom's
internal color space uses ProPhoto RGB primaries with a linear gamma (1.0),
whereas the Lightroomm percentages and histogram use a color space
code-named "Melissa", made from ProPhoto RGB primaries with an sRGB Tonal
Response Curve applied to it (roughly 2.2) -- which means it's *not* linear.
And let's not forget that in all likelihood the reason for a linear internal
color space is to be found in the fact that digital cameras are themselves
linear capture devices -- and not because a linear color space is inherently
a better editing space.
> My opinion about "every serious color scientist working with imaging" is
> actually not very high.
Gosh, what a presumptuous thing to say...
> As of today color science is vastly vodoo science, a pile of controversial
> information, half baked theories developed in a particular context and used
> in another where they do not really apply.
Yea, sure, the scientists at R.I.T.'s Munsell Color Science Lab are just a
bunch of pathetic hacks? Please, let's get back to Earth...or the label of
"pathetic" will soon find its proper place instead.
> Most of the stuff is obsolete and unapplicable to modern imaging and you
> really wonder how come nobody can write a decent book about modern digital
> image processing.
Have we another Timo on our hands? A tragic Shakespearean character, full of
wind and fury, signifying nothing? (I'm leaving the earlier portion of the
"Hamlet" quote out because I don't wish to hurl gratuitous insults...)
> Moreover the issue is largely political, where the opinions of the "serious
> color scientists" are usually used to protect vested interests of large
> corporations.
These corporations and their color scientists are just despicable...
> Poor Timo from Finland doesn't stand a chance...
Gosh, brings a tear to the eye...don't it?
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden