Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: texshooter on August 05, 2013, 06:44:05 pm

Title: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: texshooter on August 05, 2013, 06:44:05 pm
I understand it is conventional wisdom to use the Prophoto 1.8 gamma color workspace (Even Lightroom requires it). But all displays use 2.2 gamma (Even Apple  switched to 2.2). Yet I hear nobody complain about the mismatch of using the 1.8 colorspace with 2.2 displays. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better if they were the same? Either both 1.8 or both 2.2?
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: digitaldog on August 05, 2013, 06:45:32 pm
The TRC (gamma) of a working space and that of a display are totally separate, not related and don't have to match.
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Mac Mahon on August 05, 2013, 10:02:48 pm
I understand it is conventional wisdom to use the Prophoto 1.8 gamma color workspace (Even Lightroom requires it). But all displays use 2.2 gamma (Even Apple  switched to 2.2). Yet I hear nobody complain about the mismatch of using the 1.8 colorspace with 2.2 displays. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better if they were the same? Either both 1.8 or both 2.2?
As I understand it, Lightroom uses a linear TRC version of ProPhoto (not even 1.8 ) as its working space.  That's to ensure optimum adjustability of tonal data during processing.  The reason monitors are generally profiled with a non-linear TRC (gamma =2.2 typically) is to accommodate the fact that human visual response is non-linear.  The reason the two gammas don't have to match is that the colour management system, in applying a monitor profile, converts the image data, colour and TRC, from the working space to the monitor space. There's no significant loss or disadvantage in that conversion AFAIK.

Tim
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Simon Garrett on August 06, 2013, 03:36:59 am
The reason monitors are generally profiled with a non-linear TRC (gamma =2.2 typically) is to accommodate the fact that human visual response is non-linear.  
I'm not sure that's quite the reason.  The end-to-end TRC of the complete system - camera to raw processor to editor to monitor - is linear.  It must be, or the image on the monitor wouldn't look like the original scene.  

You're right that the response of our eyes is non-linear, but the same non-linear eyes view the original scene, so why would the monitor need non-linear response when the original isn't non-linear?  

In a colour-managed system, when an image is converted from one profile to another, the image data is converted from the TRC of the source data to the TRC specified in the target.  So as I understand it, if a monitor is calibrated to either a gamma of 1.8 or 2.2 then, provided the profile says that, the conversion process will convert the data to the correct TRC and the image will look right.  
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: bjanes on August 07, 2013, 09:02:38 am
I'm not sure that's quite the reason.  The end-to-end TRC of the complete system - camera to raw processor to editor to monitor - is linear.  It must be, or the image on the monitor wouldn't look like the original scene.  

You're right that the response of our eyes is non-linear, but the same non-linear eyes view the original scene, so why would the monitor need non-linear response when the original isn't non-linear?  

In a colour-managed system, when an image is converted from one profile to another, the image data is converted from the TRC of the source data to the TRC specified in the target.  So as I understand it, if a monitor is calibrated to either a gamma of 1.8 or 2.2 then, provided the profile says that, the conversion process will convert the data to the correct TRC and the image will look right.  


Yes, the end to end TRC of the complete system must be linear for reasons you state. As explained in Poynton's Gamma FAQ (http://www.poynton.com/GammaFAQ.html) gamma compression is performed when the image is encoded, and the data are re-expanded for display as shown in the figure below.

Where the non-linearity of human perception comes into play is in the matter of perceptual uniformity. With linear encoding, the perceived change in brightness of steps in the lower range is bigger than that of upper steps as shown in Figure 2 of Greg Ward's article (http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html) on encodings. For editing an image, we want the perceived brightness imposed by a change in steps to be the same at the low end as in the high end. With linear encoding, everything is scrunched up towards the lower end.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Simon Garrett on August 07, 2013, 11:39:01 am
Thanks for the reference links.
For editing an image, we want the perceived brightness imposed by a change in steps to be the same at the low end as in the high end. With linear encoding, everything is scrunched up towards the lower end.
For storage it makes sense to provide perceptually uniform encoding - especially in 8-bit encoding - but I wonder if that's so for editing?  Lightroom, for example, uses a linear-encoded working space (for editing), I believe.  
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 07, 2013, 12:03:54 pm
Thanks for the reference links.For storage it makes sense to provide perceptually uniform encoding - especially in 8-bit encoding - but I wonder if that's so for editing?  Lightroom, for example, uses a linear-encoded working space (for editing), I believe.  

Hi Simon,

Lots of image manipulations are mathematically much easier to perform in Linear gamma space, so I have to assume that good software uses that when needed/beneficial. Besides profile conversions, interpolation/resampling is another example, if one wants to avoid color artifacts.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: bjanes on August 07, 2013, 02:25:41 pm
Thanks for the reference links.For storage it makes sense to provide perceptually uniform encoding - especially in 8-bit encoding - but I wonder if that's so for editing?  Lightroom, for example, uses a linear-encoded working space (for editing), I believe.  

Lightroom does employ a linear editing space, but the readouts and histograms are in terms of an sRGB tone curve so that it appears that one is editing in a gamma encoded space. Very clever programming, indeed.

Bill
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Mac Mahon on August 07, 2013, 05:12:26 pm
Where the non-linearity of human perception comes into play is in the matter of perceptual uniformity. With linear encoding, the perceived change in brightness of steps in the lower range is bigger than that of upper steps as shown in Figure 2 of Greg Ward's article (http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html) on encodings. For editing an image, we want the perceived brightness imposed by a change in steps to be the same at the low end as in the high end. With linear encoding, everything is scrunched up towards the lower end.
Bill

Thanks for the useful references.

To be clear for the OP:  we edit in a linear (or more nearly linear) space because image data manipulation easier to control (mathematically), as Bart says;  but a linear space would not work for output because human perception (did  I say vision?) would see everything as scrunched up at the lower end, as you say.

The answer to the OP's question, then, is we have to have something like gamma 2.2 on the monitor to account for the (non-linear) feature of human perception, and we get better editing control in (near) linear space. So it is sensible that the gammas of the editing and monitor spaces are not the same.

No?

Tim
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: texshooter on August 07, 2013, 05:25:45 pm
Bill

Thanks for the useful references.

To be clear for the OP:  we edit in a linear (or more nearly linear) space because image data manipulation easier to control (mathematically), as Bart says;
Tim

So why is the Prophoto space not 1.0 gamma instead of 1.8, since linear is better for editing? Would that be a case where more is not better? Why not use a 1.0 gamma space in Photoshop similar to Lightroom's linear space?
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: xpatUSA on August 07, 2013, 07:33:16 pm
So why is the Prophoto space not 1.0 gamma instead of 1.8 . . .

The ProPhoto space, formerly known as "Reference Output Medium Metric RGB (ROMM RGB)", was published by Kodak. They say:

Quote
This color space is intended to be used for performing manipulations on images that exist in a rendered image state.

. . and a rendered image needs a non-linear gamma and 1.8 was chosen so as to match the independent profile connection spaces XYZ or Lab. It follows therefore that there can not be such an animal such "Linear ProPhoto". That is to say, another space might have the same white reference and the same primaries as ProPhoto but, if it's gamma is not 1.8, it ain't ProPhoto.

You can read the whole paper here: kronometric.org/phot/xfer/4Chris/Kodak%20ROMM%20white%20paper.pdf

Kodak also published a matching un-rendered space - "RIMM RGB". They say:

Quote
A new color encoding known as Reference Input Medium Metric RGB (RIMM RGB)
is defined. This color encoding is intended to be used for manipulating images that exist
in a device-independent un-rendered image state. This color encoding was chosen to
provide a large enough color gamut to encompass most common input devices, and is
defined to be suitable as an input space to the ICC profile connection space (PCS).
Examples of manipulations that might be applied in this color encoding include scene
balance algorithms, manual color/density/contrast/ tone scale adjustments, red-eye
correction, and dust/scratch removal. The color encoding is also appropriate for archiving
and/or interchanging unrendered images. 8-bit, 12-bit and 16-bit versions of this color
encoding are defined.

Curiously, RIMM has a stated encoding gamma of 1/0.45 = approx 2.2 with a small linear portion.

So it may be that "image data" is always non-linear but, when editing, is converted to linear
and back (I think I read that somewhere).
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: bjanes on August 08, 2013, 10:52:49 am
So it may be that "image data" is always non-linear but, when editing, is converted to linear
and back (I think I read that somewhere).

In Lightroom and ACR the editing space is linear, but Photoshop can edit in either linear or gamma encoded spaces. The preferred editing space in PS is ProPhotoRGB, but if one needs to use a linear (scene referred) space, one can convert to linear_RIMM_v4 as outlined in this post (http://www.color.org/scene-referred.xalter) on the ICC web site. It is interesting to look at the histograms of a full range image in the gamma encoded space and that of the linear space. The ProPhotoRGB histogram is on top and the linear histogram is on the bottom. Note that the linear image, contrary to what is often stated, does  not appear dark if the image is tagged with the linear profile and color management is used. However, the linear histogram is scrunched up to the left, and it is difficult to determine if clipping is present as judged by the histogram. The gamma encoded space is preferred for editing since it is nearly perceptually uniform. However, as Bart has pointed out, some image manipulations are best done in a linear space.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: xpatUSA on August 08, 2013, 11:23:44 am
Thanks for the clarification, Bill.

Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: tho_mas on August 09, 2013, 05:53:16 pm
Lightroom does employ a linear editing space, but the readouts and histograms are in terms of an sRGB tone curve so that it appears that one is editing in a gamma encoded space. Very clever programming, indeed.
you call it "clever" when the histogram of a RAW software does not display the actual image data of the output??? Now, this is certainly a sophisticated way to blandish a serious shortcoming of a software.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on August 09, 2013, 06:25:29 pm
you call it "clever" when the histogram of a RAW software does not display the actual image data of the output??? Now, this is certainly a sophisticated way to blandish a serious shortcoming of a software.

While linear edition may have advantages, a linear histogram representation hasn't. LR takes the best of both worlds.
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: eliedinur on August 09, 2013, 07:47:45 pm
you call it "clever" when the histogram of a RAW software does not display the actual image data of the output??? Now, this is certainly a sophisticated way to blandish a serious shortcoming of a software.
But it does display it. It is called soft proofing. Or are you still on LR3?
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: WombatHorror on September 05, 2013, 10:14:25 pm
I understand it is conventional wisdom to use the Prophoto 1.8 gamma color workspace (Even Lightroom requires it). But all displays use 2.2 gamma (Even Apple  switched to 2.2). Yet I hear nobody complain about the mismatch of using the 1.8 colorspace with 2.2 displays. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better if they were the same? Either both 1.8 or both 2.2?

Because you have to use fully-color managed software to view them to begin with and fully color managed software manages everything including translating from file tone response curve to monitor tone response curve. And most people store them as 16bits so you don't really get any banding during such translations.

Also all displays don't use gamma 2.2. Out of the box they can be all over the place. Most people do calibrate them to gamma 2.2 although people sometimes use sRGB TRC calibration at times instead too (and some use gamma 2.3 or 2.4 for movie viewing in cave-dark rooms, etc.)
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: madmanchan on September 06, 2013, 10:19:19 am
The TRC (gamma) of a working space and that of a display are totally separate, not related and don't have to match.

This is the crucial point.  Lightroom and other image editing apps may use various response curves for the purposes of image editing.  This is completely separate from the response curve of the display.
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on September 06, 2013, 09:40:09 pm
This is the crucial point.  Lightroom and other image editing apps may use various response curves for the purposes of image editing.  This is completely separate from the response curve of the display.

I'ld take a guess this can primarily affect the appearance of color managed previews editing tonal roll off into black for shadow detail and highlight detail into 255 white with tweaks to the curve point tool, right?
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Schewe on September 06, 2013, 09:44:09 pm
I'ld take a guess this can primarily affect the appearance of color managed previews editing tonal roll off into black for shadow detail and highlight detail into 255 white with tweaks to the curve point tool, right?

If you start off with an 8-bit display pipeline and apply a white balance and gamma correction on top in the video LUTs, yes...if you have a display that does it's internal white balance and gamma adjustment in 10-bit precision, no, it won't really be a problem. That's the difference in the displays from EIZO & NEC that do their internal adjustments in 10-bit.
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on September 06, 2013, 10:01:23 pm
If you start off with an 8-bit display pipeline and apply a white balance and gamma correction on top in the video LUTs, yes...if you have a display that does it's internal white balance and gamma adjustment in 10-bit precision, no, it won't really be a problem. That's the difference in the displays from EIZO & NEC that do their internal adjustments in 10-bit.

Does it affect how many adjustment points you can place like say in ACR's point curve tool and have it reflected in the preview?

I don't have an 10 bit internal LUT display, but I do notice this difference editing in ACR versus editing the gamma encoded data in Photoshop. Just wasn't sure if it was affected by the display profile TRC.
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Schewe on September 06, 2013, 10:18:09 pm
The display and it's profile is what ACR/LR uses to show you your preview...if you have an 8-bit display with an adjusted white point and gamma, then yes, it can have an impact on your ACR display.

The display has nothing to do with points on an ACR curve though...and your preview in ACR and in Photoshop shouldn't be different.
Title: Re: Prophoto 1.8 gamma with 2.2 gamma displays
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on September 06, 2013, 10:26:12 pm
Quote
The display has nothing to do with points on an ACR curve though...and your preview in ACR and in Photoshop shouldn't be different.

I just notice I can place more points and apply more refined detail edits represented in 100% previews working in ACR in ProPhotoRGB output space than I can applying the same edits in Photoshop in the same output working space.

I don't know why that is.

I thought it was on account of the differences between working in a linear source space in ACR versus a gamma encoded space in Photoshop.