• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?


  • Subject: Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?
  • From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:40:40 -0700

Mark wrote:

Hello Ray, list,

There's still something I do not understand:

<SNIP>

Confusion starts with prints and film. Film gets projected through a light bulb and prints reflect light falling in. Naively I would suppose that both should be coded linearly to light intensity (transmission or reflection), in order to mimic the real life subject they represent - as with the example abobe with the R'G'B' image and the CRT - the overall power function should be 1, so the image gets interpreted correctly by our eyes.


In the study of sensitometery (the measure of the sensitivity of film to light) we usually plot the typical transfer function on a Density vs Log of Exposure. On this plot there is a linear portion. Note that density is logarithmic and the log of Exposure is logarithmic. So the reaction of film to light is not linear with respect to energy.


On the typical press you would get about 20% to 25% dot gain so that the 50% dot on plate would print as a 70% to 75% dot on paper. If you plot the input dot area specified and measure the L* value out on press, you will find that it is visually linear which means that the end to end gamma is about 2.2.


Well, that breaks my logic described above. I would expect 50% gray to have L* value of 50 both on print as on film. Why are both encoded with approx. end to end gamma of about 2.2? Shouldn't overall gamma always be close to 1 so the light hitting our eyes gets interpreted correctly.


For a print to appear visually linear to the human eye the density of the dye or pigment must be non-linear. The amount of light reflected or transmitted is non-linear. Remeber that L* values are a model of human perception. L* is not linear with respect to energy.

The bottom line is...Perception is in your brain and the end to end system is not linear. This allows you to see in very low light levels and avoid being eaten by a tiger at night and also not go blind when you are exposed to direct sun light.

Ray Maxwell



_______________________________________________
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


References: 
 >Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really? (From: Mark <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really? (From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really? (From: Mark <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Linear-light <snip> really?
  • Next by Date: Re: Linear-light RAW 12bit vs R'G'B' 8bit: how much better is it really?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Linear-light <snip> really?
  • Next by thread: Re: EXIF Colorspace tags
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread