Gamma 1.8 vs. 2.2
Gamma 1.8 vs. 2.2
- Subject: Gamma 1.8 vs. 2.2
- From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:46:48 -0700
Hi Group,
Correct me if I am wrong, but here is what I understand:
1. Apple chose gamma 1.8 to make the early Mac screens match the first
Laserprinter. Other than that, I can't understand why they have stayed
with this gamma.
2. I have been told and have done some experiments that show that a
gamma 2.2 gives you a visually linear editing space. This means if you
make a change, of say 5 units in either RGB or CMYK), in either the
highlights or the shadows you get the same visual change. I was also
told that this is why the RGB Adobe 1998 and sRGB are both gamma 2.2.
Since I do both digital photography with Photoshop and video with Final
Cut Pro I have an AppleScript that switches between two custom monitor
profiles. One is gamma 1.8 and the other is 2.2.
When I use Photoshop it does not matter which monitor gamma I use, the
appearance is the same due to the operating system and the application
doing full color management and display. I will pass along this tip.
When you switch gammas with Photoshop running it will correct the image
to appear the same. However, when you switch it with Bridge running you
have to shutdown Bridge and restart it to make the image display properly.
I don't see why Apple has not done the same thing in Final Cut Pro. If
you know that you want all images to appear as they should on a standard
NTSC monitor and you know the monitor profile, why can't Final Cut Pro
honor the monitor profile. Does anyone have the answer to this one?
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