- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:31:06 +0200
On Jan 21, 2008, at 01:36, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Jan 20, 2008, at 19:58, Darin Adler wrote: >>> I think the sRGB design is a good one. >> >> I disagree. Why would you want a brand new Cinema display emulate >> the gamut of an office CRT from the previous millennium potentially >> by clipping instead of stretching the colors to gamut of the device >> at hand? > > Wouldn't changing the default gamma have essentially the same effect > (with the added difference that even profile-tagged images could not > take advantage of wider gamut)? Gamma correction maps the [0.0, 1.0] range to [0.0, 1.0], so it doesn't make the available range of color narrower or wider--it just affects the spacing of the available values within the range. If compatibility considerations were absent, the Mac default gamma would have merit, since it gives the light color range more precision whereas the TV/Windows legacy gamma wastes precision in the dark range. However, if the common case (the Web) lives in sRGB, which isn't the Mac native gamma, doing the color space conversion not only takes away the supposed benefit of the Mac default gamma *and* adds the loss of precision caused by the inevitable rounding in the conversion. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 02:31:06 UTC