[argyllcms] Re: ArgyllCMS V1.1.0 RC1 is now available
- From: "Gerhard Fürnkranz" <nospam456@xxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:41:53 +0100
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:00:57 +1100
> Von: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> An: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: [argyllcms] Re: ArgyllCMS V1.1.0 RC1 is now available
> Gerhard Fürnkranz wrote:
>
> > I think with "gamma adjustment" Alastair really means a (non-linear)
> adjustment
> > of the mid-tones (and not just a linear scaling in order to stretch a
> smaller
> > "usable range" to the full 0..100% range).
>
> Hi Gerhard,
> yes I know these are different things, but I am wondering
> if they are trying to address the same issue, since I haven't
> found the need to a "gamma adjustment" in the same sort of
> situation of feeding into the screening stage, just "usable range".
Hi Graeme,
I think there is no doubt that some kind of "gamma adjustment" is necessary in
order to obtain a reasonably linearized response (I thinks this is what
Alastair wanted to say). But I do not disagree that basically any necessary
"gamma adjustment" is supposed to be established by the calibration procedure,
and there should not be any need to do it at lower levels.
Possibly it would be even nice if the "usable range" would be determined by the
calibration procedure too. In a previous posting you said that you rather
expect the the printing system to do the usable range adjustment, but isn't it
a bit inconsequent either, if printcal still attempts to determine per-channel
limits then? [ either it does, or it does not - and if it does, what would be
wrong if the determined limits happen to be as low as say 25% (in case the
driver does not do any usabe range scaling)? ]
Regards,
Gerhard
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
Other related posts:
