Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: gamma..........  (Read 1822 times)

calindustries

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://www.craiglacourt.com
gamma..........
« on: June 23, 2010, 08:08:13 pm »

Hello,
I'm using a Multisync 2690WUXi on a MacPro with OSX 10.5.8 and Spectraview II 1.1.05 and the Eye1 spectrometer.  I've always been using D65, 110 cd/m, and Native Gamma.  I was double checking my settings with two different techs from NEC and they suggested that I should have the gamma set at 2.2.  Does this work with a mac on Leopard?   I tried to calibrate it using 2.2 but ended up with horrible banding issues.  So I went back to Native and the banding is gone.  

Any experience with this?  Any pointers for settings with this set up?

Thanks,
Craig
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
gamma..........
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2010, 08:10:43 pm »

Quote from: calindustries
I was double checking my settings with two different techs from NEC and they suggested that I should have the gamma set at 2.2.  Does this work with a mac on Leopard?

Yup, no problems. Native Gamma is useful displays that don’t deal with high bits internally, where anything that isn’t native, TRC or White Point results in banding. You have a high bit system, there’s no reason you have to use a Native setting. And 10.6 assumes a 2.2 TRC gamma.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

calindustries

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://www.craiglacourt.com
gamma..........
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2010, 08:53:48 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog
Yup, no problems. Native Gamma is useful displays that don’t deal with high bits internally, where anything that isn’t native, TRC or White Point results in banding. You have a high bit system, there’s no reason you have to use a Native setting. And 10.6 assumes a 2.2 TRC gamma.

So do I need to go to 10.6 to use 2.2?  If not what would cause the banding when trying to calibrate using 2.2 now? If it's the ONLY thing I change I get banding at 2.2 but smooth transitions at "Native"

-Craig
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
gamma..........
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2010, 09:02:01 pm »

Quote from: calindustries
So do I need to go to 10.6 to use 2.2?  If not what would cause the banding when trying to calibrate using 2.2 now? If it's the ONLY thing I change I get banding at 2.2 but smooth transitions at "Native"
In ICC aware applications, makes zero difference.

With displays that don’t have high bit paths, the farther you move from a native behavior, the more banding that can result. But you have a high bit panel. So you can set the calibration for a 2.2 gamma.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

calindustries

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://www.craiglacourt.com
gamma..........
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2010, 09:22:35 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog
In ICC aware applications, makes zero difference.

With displays that don’t have high bit paths, the farther you move from a native behavior, the more banding that can result. But you have a high bit panel. So you can set the calibration for a 2.2 gamma.


when i do i get the banding (just tried it again).  
I also tried it with the gamma set to 1.8 and got extreme banding there too.  So, it seems that I can only get smooth curves with Native Gamma....
Here is the issue that led me to look for better settings than I'm using:
When prepping images to save for web I usually convert to the monitor profile (I've been around the bush a million times with converting to sRGB and and when I convert to sRGB and try to save for web everything gets darker, more contrast, and a shift towards red. it doesn't happen when set to monitor profile and unchecking sRGB in the save for web box).  So anyway, when I save for convert to that profile, something that is 255,255,255 white goes 247, 247, 255.  I noticed this when viewing the images on different displays other than my "calibrated" one that those whites were now slightly blue.  The thing is they look exactly the same as 255,255,255 white on my display (like if you drop that 247,247,247 color box onto a 255,255,255 background it blends right in).

hmmmmmm
« Last Edit: June 23, 2010, 10:56:29 pm by calindustries »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up