Hello Patrice,
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 12:23:41 AM, you wrote:
PLG I've imagined a lengthy, but very accurate metaphor for this:
PLG Imagine you have a field of land. It is your color space. It contains
PLG flowers and trees (each of them is a different color). You want to
PLG measure
Hello Rob,
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 1:03:12 AM, you wrote:
DIS Commercial print services generally require sRGB souce however the
DIS occasional one will provide custom profiles, in most cases sRGB will
DIS be adequte. But often printer profiles for newer colour ink-jet
DIS printers are
On 14/12/06, Boros Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the best would be to create a color profile of my printer (I don't
have a printer yet) with PrintFIX or something similar and convert to
that profile just before printing. This way I could be sure that I use
the printer at it's best
On 14/12/06, Boros Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there is really no silver bullet, and I should consider choosing a
color space based on what kind of image I'm working with, and what the
final output will be, and working with ProPhotoRGB in 16 bit is just a
safe bet. Then the final step
Hello Rob,
Thursday, December 14, 2006, 1:32:42 PM, you wrote:
DIS On 14/12/06, Boros Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there is really no silver bullet, and I should consider choosing a
color space based on what kind of image I'm working with, and what the
final output will be, and working
Of course there is always the question, will the print show the added
color space or does the printer just down sample it internally? I would
guess the later, so it would just be a convenience. Basically paper and
ink will only reflect so much light. To get more you would have to print
a
Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.
(Paraphrased from Arthur C. Clark)
With the state of Education today, I believe we've entered the age of Magic.
graywolf wrote:
Of course there is always the question, will the print show the added
color space or
a transparency. It is simple physics. Luckily most photographers believe
in physics, over on an audio forum I have noticed that they mostly
believe in magic.
Oxygen-free, cryogenically-treated, directionality of AC signals
kinda magic...
Rather comical to read, actually.
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Of course it doesn't. What it *does* allow for is a different
gain for the three different channels for wider dynamic range. That
gain is a function of settings like colorspace and white balance.
Or it might not be anything user adjustable at all. You're making
Hi!
Boros Attila a écrit :
Hello Patrice,
8 SNIP SNIP SNIP -
So there is really no silver bullet, and I should consider choosing a
color space based on what kind of image I'm working with, and what the
final output will be, and working with ProPhotoRGB in 16 bit is just a
On 15/12/06, Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
BTW, in case A, there are two color conversions:
- Camera - ProPhoto RGB (ACR does this one)
- ProPhotoRGB - sRGB (before saving, in PS)
In case B, there is just one in ACR for Camera - sRGB
(I assume here that the
On 15/12/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course there is always the question, will the print show the added
color space or does the printer just down sample it internally? I would
guess the later, so it would just be a convenience. Basically paper and
ink will only reflect so much
I didn't say no processing was done. You did. It was stated in one of
the interviews with the engineers that Ken translated that they took
opportunities to do signal processing due to the 22bit A-D that were
not otherwise feasible.
... *before*. The common thought previously was that
If Pentax are using the Nucore NDX-2240 AFE on the front end of their
PRIME Image Processor (which hasn't been denied and was rumored to be
confirmed) the it provides what they deem as a color sensitive PGA
prior to the input to the 22 bit ADC. You can read up more here:
On 14/12/06, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That flies in the face
of the idea that one can, shoot in RAW and not worry about WB and other
color settings.
The idea that RAW data is unaltered by WB settings etc isn't a rule it
was just a convention that was taken for granted when
On 13/12/06, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, for example, if one were to apply a cloudy WB vs. a tungsten
WB, the red channel gain would likely be at least a bit (i.e. f-stop) or
two different. It makes sense to chose a different dynamic range for
each channel based on
On 14/12/06, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't this whole discussion pedantic? :)
Quite.
What I *meant* to say was the the per-channel transfer function
from input to output is a function of WB and colorspace. Once the output
has to be truncated to 12-bits,
Bottom line: It was better to filter out (via the lens filter)
the light that would blow out a single channel (like blue on an
overcast day or red for a sunset) and then increase the exposure to
bring *all* the levels up. Quantifiably less noise in the lower-
level channels by
What I *meant* to say was the the per-channel transfer function
from input to output is a function of WB and colorspace. Once the output
has to be truncated to 12-bits, those parameters now affect the output
dynamic range.
However if the linear data has been subjected to some
I did the same thing, Cory, and found no practical difference in the
results.
I've not suffered from excessive noise in any event ...
G
On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
It's not pure speculation. When I first got my -DS, I dove into
the color management and white
I did the same thing, Cory, and found no practical difference in the
results.
I've not suffered from excessive noise in any event ...
I didn't say practical... I said quantifiable. Revert to previous
post about this being a pedantic discussion... :)
--
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:28:30AM -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
... *before*. The common thought previously was that RAW provided
unaltered A/D data of the sensor. That may or may not have been true, but
at least it *could* have been. Now with truncation necessary, it *cannot*
be
... *before*. The common thought previously was that RAW provided
unaltered A/D data of the sensor. That may or may not have been true, but
at least it *could* have been. Now with truncation necessary, it *cannot*
be true that a RAW file contains unaltered digitzed sensor data.
You
On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
... *before*. The common thought previously was that RAW provided
unaltered A/D data of the sensor. That may or may not have been
true, but
at least it *could* have been. Now with truncation necessary, it
*cannot*
be true that a
Of course it doesn't. What it *does* allow for is a different
gain for the three different channels for wider dynamic range. That
gain is a function of settings like colorspace and white balance.
Or it might not be anything user adjustable at all. You're making
assumptions here.
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Of course it doesn't. What it *does* allow for is a different
gain for the three different channels for wider dynamic range. That
gain is a function of settings like colorspace and white balance.
Or it might not be anything user
Mark R. wrote:
Trivia: Approximately 1% of women have tetrachromatic color vision -
that is, four different types of cone cells in their retinas - and can
see a vastly broader gamut than normal people. Exactly 0% of men have
this ability; you need two X chromasomes to get it.
Add their
On 12/14/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The K10D is, after all, supposed to be a camera ... not an exercise
in Digital Systems Engineering 101.
Mark!
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
That's not what I said.
The adjustments and tuning provided by the 22bit A-D could be fixed
and not affected by user selection of color space or adjustments to
white balance, and therefore independent of what gets written in a
RAW file. It will take testing to determine exactly what does
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Yes, it was an inflamatory comment... :) It's pure speculation,
but certainly is as plausible as not that WB adjusts the written
RAW data.
Wasn't there a link to a post here a couple days ago saying the same
thing?
Some people
Some people claim that it does, and perhaps there is a measurable
change in RAW values. Significant or practically useful? No.
Maybe... for some things. For most things, no.
So I should stop using my -DS as a colorimeter to calibrate my CRT
monitor?
That's up to you. Apples
Hello PDML,
I came across this article:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml which
is about color management. The author states that current DSLR cameras
can produce colors that don't fit into the AdobeRGB color space. This
is based on some ICC profiles used by Capture
On 12/12/06, Boros Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I'm still learning color management, I have some doubts about
this. AFAIK two color spaces are commonly supported in digital
camreas: sRGB and AdobeRGB. If I set a camera to XY color space, I
would not expect to get colors which are
- Original Message -
From: Boros Attila
Subject: Understanding ProPhoto RGB - or not
While I'm still learning color management, I have some doubts about
this. AFAIK two color spaces are commonly supported in digital
camreas: sRGB and AdobeRGB. If I set a camera to XY color space, I
While I'm still learning color management, I have some doubts about
this. AFAIK two color spaces are commonly supported in digital
camreas: sRGB and AdobeRGB. If I set a camera to XY color space, I
would not expect to get colors which are outside of that color space.
Maybe with some very wild
Boros Attila wrote:
I came across this article:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml
snip
His conclusion:
What does this mean? Simply, that if you are using the Adobe RGB
colour space with a Canon 20D, for example, (and this applies to
virtually every other DSLR on the
]
To: PDML pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, 12 December, 2006 4:06
Subject: Understanding ProPhoto RGB - or not
Hello PDML,
I came across this article:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml which
is about color management. The author states that current DSLR cameras
can
Hello Rob,
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 2:36:36 PM, you wrote:
DIS It's true, the colour gamut of most camera sensors is far greater than
DIS sRGB or AdobeRGB and most aren't even fully contained within the
DIS ProPhoto RGB CS. The colours that the camera is capable of recording
DIS are clipped
Boros Attila wrote:
OK so camera sensors are actually capable of producing colors outside
of AdobeRGB. But when the cameras write the data in RAW files on the
cards, all this gets clipped/compressed/transformed (insert correct
term here) to AdobeRGB.
No it doesn't.
It doesn't get converted to
William Robb wrote:
From: Boros Attila
While I'm still learning color management, I have some doubts about
this. AFAIK two color spaces are commonly supported in digital
camreas: sRGB and AdobeRGB. If I set a camera to XY color space, I
would not expect to get colors which are outside of
Hello Mark,
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 4:06:14 PM, you wrote:
MR The color space settings on your camera only affect JPEG capture.
MR Reichmann is talking about shooting RAW, in which case you're getting
MR the (hardware-dependent) color space of the camera's sensor (and you
MR select final
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
- XYZ colorspace does not represent all colors... just all the colors
that
people can see.
It's the CIE Lab colorspace that represents the gamut of (normal) human
vision.
Trivia: Approximately 1% of women have tetrachromatic color vision -
that is, four different
Selecting a colorspace is not a matter of which is better than the
other, it's a matter of how much data you can capture vs editing
flexibility vs what device will you be presenting a rendering on.
One should capture as much data as possible, leave the options for
editing flexibility as
On Dec 12, 2006, at 7:29 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Trivia: Approximately 1% of women have tetrachromatic color vision -
that is, four different types of cone cells in their retinas - and can
see a vastly broader gamut than normal people. Exactly 0% of men have
this ability; you need two X
- XYZ colorspace does not represent all colors... just all the colors
that
people can see.
It's the CIE Lab colorspace that represents the gamut of (normal) human
vision.
I misinterpretted his original comment and thought he was talking
about CIE XYZ colorspace, not an XY
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Selecting a colorspace is not a matter of which is better than the
other, it's a matter of how much data you can capture vs editing
flexibility vs what device will you be presenting a rendering on.
Rule of thumb: Whenever someone tells you that one colorspace is
OK so camera sensors are actually capable of producing colors outside
of AdobeRGB. But when the cameras write the data in RAW files on the
cards, all this gets clipped/compressed/transformed (insert correct
term here) to AdobeRGB.
No it doesn't.
It doesn't get converted to *any* other
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
OK so camera sensors are actually capable of producing colors outside
of AdobeRGB. But when the cameras write the data in RAW files on the
cards, all this gets clipped/compressed/transformed (insert correct
term here) to AdobeRGB.
No it doesn't.
It doesn't get
On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
OK so camera sensors are actually capable of producing colors
outside
of AdobeRGB. But when the cameras write the data in RAW files on the
cards, all this gets clipped/compressed/transformed (insert correct
term here) to AdobeRGB.
No it
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:29:13AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Trivia: Approximately 1% of women have tetrachromatic color vision -
that is, four different types of cone cells in their retinas - and can
see a vastly broader gamut than normal people. Exactly 0% of men
On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
OK so camera sensors are actually capable of producing colors
outside
of AdobeRGB. But when the cameras write the data in RAW files on the
cards, all this gets clipped/compressed/transformed (insert correct
term here) to AdobeRGB.
No it
No it doesn't.
It doesn't get converted to *any* other colorspace until you do RAW
conversion.
What about the K10D's 22-bit - 1[246]-bit(?) lossy conversion to
RAW? Somewhere in the signal chain the camera's processor decided to
throw something away.
Changing sample size doesn't
On Dec 12, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I'm not saying I know how it's done... just trying to provide food
for thought. RAW isn't RAW anymore if the 22-bits have been
truncated on
a per-channel basis to 12...
RAW format has always been what was written from the sensor
On Dec 12, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I'm not saying I know how it's done... just trying to provide food
for thought. RAW isn't RAW anymore if the 22-bits have been
truncated on
a per-channel basis to 12...
RAW format has always been what was written from the sensor
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
RAW format has always been what was written from the sensor into a
digital representation, a 2D array of photosite values along with
metadata describing the camera state and organization of that array,
no matter what transformations or A-D
Mark Roberts a écrit :
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Selecting a colorspace is not a matter of which is better than the
other, it's a matter of how much data you can capture vs editing
flexibility vs what device will you be presenting a rendering on.
Rule of thumb: Whenever someone
According to wikipedia (insert appropriate disclaimer here):
It has been suggested that women who are carriers for variant cone pigments
may be born as full tetrachromats, having four different simultaneously
functioning kinds of cones to pick up different colors.[1] However, this has
not
On 13/12/06, Boros Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Mark,
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 4:06:14 PM, you wrote:
MR The color space settings on your camera only affect JPEG capture.
MR Reichmann is talking about shooting RAW, in which case you're getting
MR the (hardware-dependent) color
Thats not true. Nikon and Canon both do a lot of their own sensor to
digital representation processing too, ya know? And their RAW data is
just as much RAW as anyone else's. I don't know what quantization
they use in their A-D converter; I suspect it's greater than 12 bits
at least in the
On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:54 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Umm... sorry. I'll have to throw the bullshit flag on that
play. If one measures and analog voltage at 22-bits, does nothing
to it,
and then throws away the least-significant 10 bits to produce 12-
bits, the
results are
On 13/12/06, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm... sorry. I'll have to throw the bullshit flag on that
play. If one measures and analog voltage at 22-bits, does nothing to it,
and then throws away the least-significant 10 bits to produce 12-bits, the
results are absolutely
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:54:25PM -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Most likely the reason for using 22-bits was so that variable-gain
analog amplifiers and fixed-full-scale-voltage A/D's were NOT used. For
ISO 100, choose bits 10-22. For ISO 200 choose bits 9-21. ISO 400 choose
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:40 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Understanding ProPhoto RGB - or not
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:54:25PM -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Most likely the reason for using 22-bits was so that
variable-gain
analog amplifiers and fixed-full
On 13/12/06, Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, for example, if one were to apply a cloudy WB vs. a tungsten
WB, the red channel gain would likely be at least a bit (i.e. f-stop) or
two different. It makes sense to chose a different dynamic range for
each channel based on
64 matches
Mail list logo
