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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
