"16-bit" mode.

the surprise to me about color management is thats its a suprise to
everyone else.

I've always thought that the task of converting different gamuts,
white points, phosphers etc too much for the average / typical user.

How do you color manage when you have perceptive colors like RGB,
color mixed output colors like CMYK and fixed-by-dye colors like
Pantones, all on the same page?

Can't be done! How do you manage out of gamut colors. Shrink the
gamut, and if the image moves to a device with a larger gamut, what
happens then?

Do you shrink a gamut by chromaticity ie shrink towards the white
point, or do you do it so the perceptual colors are the same?

Just my 2p worth. I have color management turned off

DB

the surprise to me about color management is thats its a suprise to
everyone else.

I've always thought that the task of converting different gamuts,
white points, phosphers etc too much for the average / typical user.

How do you color manage when you have perceptive colors like RGB,
color mixed output colors like CMYK and fixed-by-dye colors like
Pantones, all on the same page?

Can't be done! How do you manage out of gamut colors. Shrink the
gamut, and if the image moves to a device with a larger gamut, what
happens then?

Do you shrink a gamut by chromaticity ie shrink towards the white
point, or do you do it so the perceptual colors are the same?

Just my 2p worth. I have color management turned off

DB

Timo Autiokari wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/9_Gamma.pdf

Yes, very good information, from a rather heavy weight professional,
his Bio btw is at: http://alvyray.com/Bio/default.htm Even if it was
written in 1995 it is perfectly valid today (only that in case the
image has an embedded ICC profile we need not to *guess* the transfer
function, ICC color-management was not very popular at that time).

They must be transmitting/recording in at least 18 bit. That is
the bit level that Chris Cox et al say is the minimum necessary
for linear images, without gamma encoding.

No more bits are necessary for digital imaging than what the sensor of
the acquire device is able to provide (according to it's S/N ratio) in
other words there is no need to store pure noise. Say you buy 12 eggs,
then you do not need a trailer truck to bring them home. And these
days the so called pro scanners and pro digital cameras can not reach
even 10-bit. Ther real pro devices (like the EverSmart Supreme ll
scanner that has cooled CCD) can do nearly 12-bit.

And the so called banding issue in 8-bit/c is linear is enormously
exaggerated, it is in fact quite an academic case:Here is an example
from a thread on my forums:

16-bit/ edit:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...edit-16bit.jpg
8-bit/c edit
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...-edit-8bit.jpg

The original was a linear converted RAW from D60. You can read the
details from the thread:'Linear workflow and 8bit/channel' if you like
to go there. Rather demanding picture in regards to the horrible
banding issue, can you see *any* problems in the 8-bit/c edit?

It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging.
One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data.

Yes, the scientific imaging is done in linear.

The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods
simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear
displays.

This the _easy solution_ for the ordinary consumers. It is *not* an
engineering issue but a marketing issue.The industry simply needs a
way to sell the digital imaging gadgets to the mass market consumers
without stressing the consumers with the workflow issues.

And the third type of digital imaging is the high end professional
imaging that you see in the better magazines etc. It is still done in
linear domain like it has been done for the past 30 years. For the
very reasons Dr. Alvy Ray Smith lists on his above mentioned memo like
"all computer graphics computations assume linear images", this
includes Photoshop CS also. When the computations are applied over
gamma compensated image data there will be the Gamma Induced Errors.

Timo Autiokari


Hello

It would be really interesting to know if he still supports his 1995
writings. He seems to be a heavy weight in computer graphics.

Mike Engles

Timo Autiokari wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/9_Gamma.pdf

Yes, very good information, from a rather heavy weight professional,
his Bio btw is at: http://alvyray.com/Bio/default.htm Even if it was
written in 1995 it is perfectly valid today (only that in case the
image has an embedded ICC profile we need not to *guess* the transfer
function, ICC color-management was not very popular at that time).

They must be transmitting/recording in at least 18 bit. That is
the bit level that Chris Cox et al say is the minimum necessary
for linear images, without gamma encoding.

No more bits are necessary for digital imaging than what the sensor of
the acquire device is able to provide (according to it's S/N ratio) in
other words there is no need to store pure noise. Say you buy 12 eggs,
then you do not need a trailer truck to bring them home. And these
days the so called pro scanners and pro digital cameras can not reach
even 10-bit. Ther real pro devices (like the EverSmart Supreme ll
scanner that has cooled CCD) can do nearly 12-bit.

And the so called banding issue in 8-bit/c is linear is enormously
exaggerated, it is in fact quite an academic case:Here is an example
from a thread on my forums:

16-bit/ edit:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...edit-16bit.jpg
8-bit/c edit
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...-edit-8bit.jpg

The original was a linear converted RAW from D60. You can read the
details from the thread:'Linear workflow and 8bit/channel' if you like
to go there. Rather demanding picture in regards to the horrible
banding issue, can you see *any* problems in the 8-bit/c edit?

It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging.
One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data.

Yes, the scientific imaging is done in linear.

The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods
simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear
displays.

This the _easy solution_ for the ordinary consumers. It is *not* an
engineering issue but a marketing issue.The industry simply needs a
way to sell the digital imaging gadgets to the mass market consumers
without stressing the consumers with the workflow issues.

And the third type of digital imaging is the high end professional
imaging that you see in the better magazines etc. It is still done in
linear domain like it has been done for the past 30 years. For the
very reasons Dr. Alvy Ray Smith lists on his above mentioned memo like
"all computer graphics computations assume linear images", this
includes Photoshop CS also. When the computations are applied over
gamma compensated image data there will be the Gamma Induced Errors.

Timo Autiokari


Hello

It would be really interesting to know if he still supports his 1995
writings. He seems to be a heavy weight in computer graphics.

Mike Engles

Mike Engles wrote:

Timo Autiokari wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/9_Gamma.pdf

Yes, very good information, from a rather heavy weight professional,
his Bio btw is at: http://alvyray.com/Bio/default.htm Even if it was
written in 1995 it is perfectly valid today (only that in case the
image has an embedded ICC profile we need not to *guess* the transfer
function, ICC color-management was not very popular at that time).

They must be transmitting/recording in at least 18 bit. That is
the bit level that Chris Cox et al say is the minimum necessary
for linear images, without gamma encoding.

No more bits are necessary for digital imaging than what the sensor of
the acquire device is able to provide (according to it's S/N ratio) in
other words there is no need to store pure noise. Say you buy 12 eggs,
then you do not need a trailer truck to bring them home. And these
days the so called pro scanners and pro digital cameras can not reach
even 10-bit. Ther real pro devices (like the EverSmart Supreme ll
scanner that has cooled CCD) can do nearly 12-bit.

And the so called banding issue in 8-bit/c is linear is enormously
exaggerated, it is in fact quite an academic case:Here is an example
from a thread on my forums:

16-bit/ edit:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...edit-16bit.jpg
8-bit/c edit
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...-edit-8bit.jpg

The original was a linear converted RAW from D60. You can read the
details from the thread:'Linear workflow and 8bit/channel' if you like
to go there. Rather demanding picture in regards to the horrible
banding issue, can you see *any* problems in the 8-bit/c edit?

It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging.
One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data.

Yes, the scientific imaging is done in linear.

The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods
simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear
displays.

This the _easy solution_ for the ordinary consumers. It is *not* an
engineering issue but a marketing issue.The industry simply needs a
way to sell the digital imaging gadgets to the mass market consumers
without stressing the consumers with the workflow issues.

And the third type of digital imaging is the high end professional
imaging that you see in the better magazines etc. It is still done in
linear domain like it has been done for the past 30 years. For the
very reasons Dr. Alvy Ray Smith lists on his above mentioned memo like
"all computer graphics computations assume linear images", this
includes Photoshop CS also. When the computations are applied over
gamma compensated image data there will be the Gamma Induced Errors.

Timo Autiokari

Hello

It would be really interesting to know if he still supports his 1995
writings. He seems to be a heavy weight in computer graphics.

Mike Engles


Hello

He did in 1998 and all the articles are on his site.
He certainly is a proponent of linear processing.

ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/17_Nonln.pdf

Mike Engles

Mike Engles wrote:

Timo Autiokari wrote:

Mike Engles wrote:

ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/9_Gamma.pdf

Yes, very good information, from a rather heavy weight professional,
his Bio btw is at: http://alvyray.com/Bio/default.htm Even if it was
written in 1995 it is perfectly valid today (only that in case the
image has an embedded ICC profile we need not to *guess* the transfer
function, ICC color-management was not very popular at that time).

They must be transmitting/recording in at least 18 bit. That is
the bit level that Chris Cox et al say is the minimum necessary
for linear images, without gamma encoding.

No more bits are necessary for digital imaging than what the sensor of
the acquire device is able to provide (according to it's S/N ratio) in
other words there is no need to store pure noise. Say you buy 12 eggs,
then you do not need a trailer truck to bring them home. And these
days the so called pro scanners and pro digital cameras can not reach
even 10-bit. Ther real pro devices (like the EverSmart Supreme ll
scanner that has cooled CCD) can do nearly 12-bit.

And the so called banding issue in 8-bit/c is linear is enormously
exaggerated, it is in fact quite an academic case:Here is an example
from a thread on my forums:

16-bit/ edit:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...edit-16bit.jpg
8-bit/c edit
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/sad_...-edit-8bit.jpg

The original was a linear converted RAW from D60. You can read the
details from the thread:'Linear workflow and 8bit/channel' if you like
to go there. Rather demanding picture in regards to the horrible
banding issue, can you see *any* problems in the 8-bit/c edit?

It does seem that what we have today is two types of digital imaging.
One is the truly scientific one that uses ALL linear data.

Yes, the scientific imaging is done in linear.

The other is a convenient engineering one that delivers the goods
simply, by pre compensating the linear data to display on non linear
displays.

This the _easy solution_ for the ordinary consumers. It is *not* an
engineering issue but a marketing issue.The industry simply needs a
way to sell the digital imaging gadgets to the mass market consumers
without stressing the consumers with the workflow issues.

And the third type of digital imaging is the high end professional
imaging that you see in the better magazines etc. It is still done in
linear domain like it has been done for the past 30 years. For the
very reasons Dr. Alvy Ray Smith lists on his above mentioned memo like
"all computer graphics computations assume linear images", this
includes Photoshop CS also. When the computations are applied over
gamma compensated image data there will be the Gamma Induced Errors.

Timo Autiokari

Hello

It would be really interesting to know if he still supports his 1995
writings. He seems to be a heavy weight in computer graphics.

Mike Engles


Hello

He did in 1998 and all the articles are on his site.
He certainly is a proponent of linear processing.

ftp://ftp.alvyray.com/Acrobat/17_Nonln.pdf

Mike Engles

In article , Mike
Russell wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
Please do not feed the troll.

In article , Timo
Autiokari wrote nothing useful:

I respectfully disagree. Timo's contributions to the group are certainly of
value.

You mean his misinformation campaign?
Get real.

Chris

In article , Mike
Russell wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
Please do not feed the troll.

In article , Timo
Autiokari wrote nothing useful:

I respectfully disagree. Timo's contributions to the group are certainly of
value.

You mean his misinformation campaign?
Get real.

Chris

In article , wrote:

The pot is calling the kettle black again. Chris Cox' behavior was well
documented in this link:
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/How_CM_Failed.pdf


Which is also documented as being pure BS - the part about me being
taken from an incomplete online resume, then jumping to a conclusion
and not bothering to check his facts.

Dan lost a lot of his remaining credibility with that cheap shot.

Chris

In article , wrote:

The pot is calling the kettle black again. Chris Cox' behavior was well
documented in this link:
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/How_CM_Failed.pdf


Which is also documented as being pure BS - the part about me being
taken from an incomplete online resume, then jumping to a conclusion
and not bothering to check his facts.

Dan lost a lot of his remaining credibility with that cheap shot.

Chris