|
|
what the hell are you talking about?!!! :(
|
what the hell are you talking about?!!! :(
|
|
|
"Mike Engles" wrote in message ... SNIP There was a discussion about this kind of thing on the scanner group, comp.periphs.scanner. Post your observation there. You might get a explanation. You probably are referring to these: 1. Chris Cox's 'explanation' of the internal format of 15bits+1: http://groups.google.nl/groups?selm=...25ccox%40minds pring.com&output=gplain 2. The way Photoshop converts (16-bits to 8-bits) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%25ccox%40mind spring.com&output=gplain Bart |
"Mike Engles" wrote in message ... SNIP There was a discussion about this kind of thing on the scanner group, comp.periphs.scanner. Post your observation there. You might get a explanation. You probably are referring to these: 1. Chris Cox's 'explanation' of the internal format of 15bits+1: http://groups.google.nl/groups?selm=...25ccox%40minds pring.com&output=gplain 2. The way Photoshop converts (16-bits to 8-bits) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%25ccox%40mind spring.com&output=gplain Bart |
wrote:
(Mitch Alsup) wrote: This looks like somebody is applying the gamma correction to the RAW data ouptut = input**2.2 / some-fixed-scaling No; it's totally linear. Form your own table: 32764/19128 = 1.713 65525/32762 = 2.000 So it isn't exactly linear. From these two points (essentially all you posted) it looks like there is a gamma-esque hump in the transfer function. You should fetch gnuplot or a similar plotting tool and plot the entire "real" vs "photoslop" correspondance you obtained. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com