On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:45:18 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My summary would be ... if you want a more predictable editing
space, you should use gamma=2.2, but if your scans tend to go straight
from scanner to your printer with minor adjustments, then gamma=1.8
cannot be a wrong
Tony, for us users of Vuescan on a Mac scanning for output to an Epson
Printer, would 1.8 be good gamma starting point? Vuescan defaults to 2.2,
I'm guessing because most users are on Windows.
STEPHENJENNINGS
P h o t o g r a p h e r
Cambridge, MA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be more
Stephen writes ...
Tony, for us users of Vuescan on a Mac scanning for output to an
Epson
Printer, would 1.8 be good gamma starting point? Vuescan defaults
to 2.2,
I'm guessing because most users are on Windows.
...
A 2.2 gamma space has only two things going for it (... 3 if you
Tom writes ...
Thanks for the explanation. Now I just need to get some kind of idea
of a
good value for gamma. Windows defaults to 2.2. My scanner software
defaults
to 1.4. If I change the scanner software to gamma=2.2 images look
WAY too
bright... Why the difference?
We need to be a
: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 12:42 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?
| I know you've got a smily face, but he was asking for a technical answer,
| and if you think carefully about what each word means in
settings at
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/calibration/blackpoint/crt_brightness_and_contras
t.htm
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?
|
Hello all
I have been lurking for a while now but be very interested in the
technical aspects of scanning. With the help of on of the URLs given I
found this article http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG-GammaAppendix.html which
is written in a way where even I understand it (which means everyone
else will
Thanks for all the great links that have been posted in association with
this thread!
Tom writes ...
Here I am. Spending hours trying to get the gamma just right so that
all my
pictures will look great on any platform. And then I hit the print
button... Then what??
In short: How does the gamma setting affect the output when the
image is
printed out on paper? Should I have
-
From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: This Gamma thing version 2.0
| Tom writes ...
|
| Here I am. Spending hours trying to get the gamma just right so that
| all my
| pictures will look gr
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 22:16:33 -0800 Tom Christiansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Now I just need to get some kind of idea of a
good value for gamma. Windows defaults to 2.2. My scanner software defaults
to 1.4. If I change the scanner software to gamma=2.2 images
Start reading here: CGSD - Gamma Correction Home Page:
http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma.html and read on.
All the facts you want and then some.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Christiansen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:07 PM
Subject:
From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is Giorgianni and Madden's definition from "Digital Color Management":
"Exponent of a power-law equation relating CRT luminance to control-signal
voltage". Also, "The slope of the straight-line portion of a CRT
characteristic curve relating log
Hi,
Here is Giorgianni and Madden's definition from "Digital Color Management":
"Exponent of a power-law equation relating CRT luminance to control-signal
voltage".
OK. I thought the relationship between luminance and control voltage was
linear. But I guess that if it was linear the viewer
14 matches
Mail list logo
