[argyllcms] Re: sRGB/AdobeRGB98 vs Lab (was Verifying profile quality...)
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:29:52 +1100
Milton Taylor wrote:
I can see it would be useful perhaps to have two shapes then, i.e keep
them separate. One for 'safe emissive conditions', and one for typical
reflective conditions, assuming D50 white point with optimal lighting,
perhaps as you might find in a gallery [and not the average home
loungeroom].
For some purposes, yes. The emissive one is still pretty arbitrary
however (how much light to you assume it can generate at an individual
wavelength, compared to the white point ?), and even the reflective
one has a degree of arbitrariness, in the choice of illuminant.
Having two "visible gamuts" defeats the original purpose I think,
since it was to compare different types of output devices.
An associated factor (which is largely being overlooked in
all this I think), is that the color gamut of an emissive
device can be manipulated by the choice of white point.
Using display calibration to set maximum brightness defeats
this idea, and the normal ICC way of storing relative colorimetric
information also works against it, but if the
maximum brightness was set in the profile (and
this might be something as simple as setting a
white point below the level of the maximum output,
depending on how the profile was subsequently used),
the effective gamut of a display can be boosted
considerably in the area of bright saturated colors.
I'm not sure this would help much in making a display
encompass more of a printing gamut (since printers tend to
be large in the darker saturated colors area), but
it could help (particularly when modern LCD monitors have
brightness to burn.)
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
