Adobe RGB (1998) = opRGB ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space States that Adobe RGB (1998) and opRGB (IEC 61966-2-5:2007) are identical. True? - J Jeff Nova Chief Executive Officer Colorhythm https://colorhythm.com Mobile: +1 510-710-9590 Main: +1 415-399-9921
Jeff Nova via colorsync-users wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space States that Adobe RGB (1998) and opRGB (IEC 61966-2-5:2007) are identical.
The specs here <https://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/oprgb.xalter> which claim to be from IEC 61966-2-5:2007 are certainly the same as Adobe RGB as far as the primaries, white point and gamma curves. Some of the secondary numbers (viewing conditions) seem to differ slightly. Whether this is of any importance depends on your intended use of the specs. Cheers, Graeme Gill.
Hi Graeme, As you are one of the few people who understand this, maybe you could explain the difference to us. I believe that the real problem with AdobeRGB has always been that the name itself is copyrighted although the data is not. Edmund On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 5:26 AM Graeme Gill via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Jeff Nova via colorsync-users wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space States that Adobe RGB (1998) and opRGB (IEC 61966-2-5:2007) are identical.
The specs here <https://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/oprgb.xalter> which claim to be from IEC 61966-2-5:2007 are certainly the same as Adobe RGB as far as the primaries, white point and gamma curves.
Some of the secondary numbers (viewing conditions) seem to differ slightly. Whether this is of any importance depends on your intended use of the specs.
Cheers, Graeme Gill. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On Apr 11, 2023, at 5:37 AM, edmund ronald via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
I believe that the real problem with AdobeRGB has always been that the name itself is copyrighted although the data is not.
Edmund
What problem? The actual ‘problem’ was Adobe RGB (1998) was a mistake in the making. It was supposed to be SMPTE 240M, and it wasn’t as one or maybe two chromaticity values published on the web and used were wrong. So Adobe can't call it SMPTE 240M; it works pretty much as Mr. Knoll wished; Adobe had to change the name. IMHO, the real problem with Adobe RGB (1998) is the color gamut is too small for my needs. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
edmund ronald wrote: Hi Edmund,
As you are one of the few people who understand this, maybe you could explain the difference to us.
I presume you mean viewing condition values ? It comes down to how you want to use the spec. * Do you want a display to emulate an ideal AdobeRGB display ? * Do you want a profile that represents AdobeRGB display response as measured by a contact instrument, so that your choice of viewing conditions can be applied to it if that's what you want to do with it ? * Do you want a profile that represents an AdobeRGB display with the built in viewing conditions of the specifications ? [ Certainly having a non trademarked name has advantages in being able to use the name without fear of a company claiming you are using it in a misleading way. ] Cheers, Graeme Gill.
participants (4)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
edmund ronald
-
Graeme Gill
-
Jeff Nova