[argyllcms] Re: Argyll and 30-bit colors
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:19:10 -0700
On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:44 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know sh*t about the software side of things, but I've looked at some
HDR monitors running custom programming in my local mall shop, and the
results are well worth it. This is not a fad like 3D, it is a genuine
consumer tech update.
A complete rewrite of the operating system and graphics formats and image
manipulation software will be required to support something like that.
With some notable exceptions in the video and animation industries, everything
on computers assumes and is designed to mimic non-fluorescent reflective print
media. The brightest anything can get is paper white. Anything brighter -- such
as specular reflections, fluorescence, an actual light source, or whatever --
is explicitly clipped to paper white.
This was quite sensible back in the days of the original Apple LaserWriter to
which all modern graphics systems (with the noted exceptions) trace their
heritage. And it hasn't been all that much of a limitation so long as we were
working with monitors whose brightness maxed out at roughly ambient room
But it _is_ a problem if you want to capture a scene with a wide dynamic range,
and it's _especially_ a problem if you want to actually reproduce such a scene.
...but less of a problem than you might think. You see, of necessity,
accurately reproducing a scene with lots of dynamic range...well, it means
you've actually got to have a display that's just as bright as the original.
And that's not comfortable. Do you _really_ want to have too-bright-to-look-at
specular reflections coming off your monitor? Or to have the picture of the
salt flats at noon be as glaring as the real thing?
In practice, what people are interested in is compressing dynamic range...and
that's _always_ going to be at least as much art as science. Because it means
you're going to have to throw away parts of the image's dynamic range in order
to compress it down to fit the output medium...and which parts are you most
willing to sacrifice?
Note that there're similar concerns with wide color gamuts. And even bigger
concerns if you're going to be making prints, which many of us still do....
Other related posts: