Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 27   Go Down

Author Topic: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic  (Read 124378 times)

garyfong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #120 on: August 24, 2014, 03:52:24 pm »

What isn't clear about the testing process I propose? Why just a Color Checker? Not a good idea as the sole object in the test for a number of reasons. I didn't suggest you polish. IF you capture raw, we can (you could) also see the results of ProPhoto RGB on the data. Again, IF you viewed my video, you'd see that Adobe RGB is too small a working space for many scene's and output devices. You are limiting the data you can gain from the test by allowing the camera to funnel the color even into Adobe RGB (1998)! I'm somewhat concerned that you feel there has to be a winner and thus a loser. Based on your push back in just your last post about how to conduct such a test, after you yourself asked us for comments, I suspect this is just another waste of time.
Why don't you tell us the full aspect of the test: what capture device, of what subject under what illuminant. Printed on what device using what kind of color management. What print size and viewed how? If you really DO want to get to the bottom of this, what is the testing process and what is it you hope to gain?

Lastly, how will any of this fix the mistakes on your other two video's?

Why the color checker?  Because it will show the difference between squares.  If I did a portrait, it would be subjective.  The lighting will be full spectrum lighting - or daylight.  In either case, they will be the same lighting, neutrally custom balanced.

What do I hope to gain?  A test that will show how much better AdobeRGB capture and print is over sRGB, if it is, or if it isn't.  Or if it's a tie.  No need to throw a bunch of criticism (depends on the paper, who views it, male/female/young/old) at the method.  It will be an A/B test, no variables except for the capture and output color space.

Are you up for the interview Andrew Rodney?
Logged

supercurio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Hi! New here
    • Google+
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #121 on: August 24, 2014, 03:52:55 pm »

DigitalDog:

Depends on the paper surface?  Male vs Female?  Different ages for the test group?  Wait for you to build a custom profile for the commercial printer we are going to use?  But it won't happen by tomorrow?  Then you wouldn't be critical of the test?

It'll be images of an X-rite color checker, same lighting, custom white balanced, within seconds of each other.  Results shown to the general population, who will vote.  And I will publish far and wide the results.  If AdobeRGB is that much better, then that would be a huge reason for people to maintain that workflow.  If not, then it won't be.  I have a hunch how it's going to go, but I can't say for sure until I test it in a controlled environment with no variables between samples.

I'm not going to take it in RAW then polish it up.  They will be identical.  SOTC.

All of this heated discussion going on, isn't AdobeRGB going to be hugely the winner for all of the work you do to hone this in?

Are you confident that AdobeRGB is so much better than sRGB, or not?

Gary, you are assuming here that the camera you will use in this test is color calibrated.

However unless you calibrate it yourself with a very precise methodology, your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all.
To make your test valid, you cannot use as source a non-calibrated input (your camera).

Why?

Think about that:
You'll compare a non-calibrated input printed to a non-calibrated output with the real color checker itself.

The results of such test won't mean anything.
If I was not clear enough, the test itself and its results are entirely irrelevant due to methodology error.

If you want to get closer to something relevant, print the color checker images encoded in sRGB and Adobe RGB you can find on http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/ColorChecker.htm
Those are the color patches read by spectrophotometers, which will be a lot more accurate than cameras JPEG outputs, all of them being intentionally tweaked to look more flattering and follow a manufacturer-specific "signature look".

Sorry to tell you your idea doesn't work but, well, you asked :)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 03:59:17 pm by supercurio »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #122 on: August 24, 2014, 03:56:14 pm »

If you are Ken Rockwell sending your prints to Costco, you wouldn't really lose much gamut by sending your images in sRGB for printing, since the gamut of the printer is hardly larger than sRGB
Naturally it depends on the Costco printer as they offer output on Epson's too.
Why lose ANY gamut?
Here's my list of the kinds of printers you are speaking of and the colors (in one area) that clip. FWIW, it's quite easy to have NO clipping. Don't use sRGB. sRGB is hardly every the right answer for output to a print (if you understand how to use color management that is):

If you don't care about those greens and blues and some yellows (in just these areas of color space), sRGB is the right answer for you. Some of us do care.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #123 on: August 24, 2014, 03:59:27 pm »

Why the color checker?  Because it will show the difference between squares.  If I did a portrait, it would be subjective.  The lighting will be full spectrum lighting - or daylight.  In either case, they will be the same lighting, neutrally custom balanced.

What do I hope to gain?  A test that will show how much better AdobeRGB capture and print is over sRGB, if it is, or if it isn't.  Or if it's a tie.  No need to throw a bunch of criticism (depends on the paper, who views it, male/female/young/old) at the method.  It will be an A/B test, no variables except for the capture and output color space.

Are you up for the interview Andrew Rodney?

If you are using the color checker with sRGB, you will have problems, since the cyan patch is out of gamut with sRGB. According to Bruce Lindbloom, that patch (with D50 illumination) has an sRGB value of -48.9 for the red channel.

Bill
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #124 on: August 24, 2014, 04:03:13 pm »

Yeah, that's the sad thing about photo labs now, however, lowly Costco has adopted a properly color managed workflow. You can go to Dry Creek Photo and download custom profiles for Costco stores all over the world...

Yes, Jeff, you and I, and (mostly) everybody else on this forum can. Once again, there is an audience (e.g., Garry's audience) that can not or doesn't want to.

How do we know about Dry Creek? I learned it years ago by spending way too much time reading photography forums and stumbling on it in some post. That came after I decided to embark on this never-ending journey into color management, better known, at that time, by its affectionate acronym "WTF!?" (or what I said the first time I attempted to print something at home and saw those dark, crazy-color prints).

You'd think you would find the info on Dry Creek on Costco site. Yes, but not immediately or obviously. I found it, but I was actively searching for it. It is not on their screen when you are ordering photos. It is not on their Help section. It is on their home page, at the bottom, where all those "small prints" are, under the title the least likely to contain info on printer profiles: "About Costco."

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #125 on: August 24, 2014, 04:04:19 pm »

Why the color checker?  Because it will show the difference between squares.  If I did a portrait, it would be subjective.
So in your mind, the only way to test is use either a portrait OR just a Color Checker? Think harder Gary.
Quote
The lighting will be full spectrum lighting - or daylight.
That comment will indeed invoke some laughter here but let's not go there as yet....
Quote
What do I hope to gain?  A test that will show how much better AdobeRGB capture and print is over sRGB, if it is, or if it isn't.
As so far stated, your testing methodology is very flawed. IF that's all you want to do, you don't have to shoot anything at all. Download my Printer Test File which IS in Adobe RGB (1998). Convert to sRGB, print one of each correctly implementing color management. http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
Quote
No need to throw a bunch of criticism (depends on the paper, who views it, male/female/young/old) at the method.
You intend to have some human's view the prints and vote? If so, all of the variables including the observers viewing the prints is absolutely important. Why not just ask Will and Ken to vote along with just your vote and post the results? What you propose is silly sir.
Quote
Are you up for the interview Andrew Rodney?
Based on what you've proposed? Absolutely not. IF and when you want to come up with a scientific method and lose the religion, maybe.
And again, for the 3rd time Gary, how will any of this fix the number of mistakes you've provided on your two video's on the subject of color management and color spaces? I'm missing this piece of the pie.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #126 on: August 24, 2014, 04:07:32 pm »

Yes, Jeff, you and I, and (mostly) everybody else on this forum can. Once again, there is an audience (e.g., Garry's audience) that can not or doesn't want to.
And you've come up with that fact how? It is a rather ridiculous statement sir. If they can navitage to Gary's video's I suspect they can make their way to DryCreek's site too.
You sound very much like Gary on his video page by suggesting beginners are simply too stupid to learn how to do this properly, it isn't so. Teach them!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #127 on: August 24, 2014, 04:09:57 pm »

Naturally it depends on the Costco printer as they offer output on Epson's too.
Why lose ANY gamut?
Here's my list of the kinds of printers you are speaking of and the colors (in one area) that clip. FWIW, it's quite easy to have NO clipping. Don't use sRGB. sRGB is hardly every the right answer for output to a print (if you understand how to use color management that is):

If you don't care about those greens and blues and some yellows (in just these areas of color space), sRGB is the right answer for you. Some of us do care.

Andrew,

Thanks for posting the additional plots. Are they all for glossy paper, since that paper has the widest color gamut.

Mr. Fong can perform his tests, but I would imagine that they would show what you have already demonstrated with your Colorthink plots. If one has accurate profiles, this would be akin to soft proofing and would avoid wasting paper. A plot would be necessary to demonstrate what colors are actually in his test image and that they are sufficiently saturated to stress the printer. It would be interesting to see how the visual appearances correlate with the DeltaEs of the plot. If one trusts science, the results are already in as shown by your plots.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #128 on: August 24, 2014, 04:10:05 pm »

Out of the 24 patches of the color checker, there is only one cyan patch that is out of sRGB. If your results have any other differences, then your process is wrong
I suspect it will be.
Bet you dollars to donuts based on these facts about the lack of out of gamut colors in the chart, we see Gary use it exclusively anyway!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #129 on: August 24, 2014, 04:13:01 pm »

Thanks for posting the additional plots. Are they all for glossy paper, since that paper has the widest color gamut.
So?
The plots also illustrate the nonsense Will has stated about sRGB and output devices, not that it will stop Gary from hooking up with Will to produce a video that will likely have more egregious misinformation while dragging my name through the mud. I can hardly wait to see it!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #130 on: August 24, 2014, 04:30:52 pm »

Are they all for glossy paper, since that paper has the widest color gamut.
Here's a Lightjet on Fuji Matt paper:
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #131 on: August 24, 2014, 04:40:07 pm »

And you've come up with that fact how? It is a rather ridiculous statement sir. If they can navitage to Gary's video's I suspect they can make their way to DryCreek's site too.
You sound very much like Gary on his video page by suggesting beginners are simply too stupid to learn how to do this properly, it isn't so. Teach them!

Because, Andrew, I have friends and acquaintances that often have expensive cameras (because they are cool and they can afford it - the proverbial dentists) but ZERO interest in learning anything above how to post it on Facebook or print it at Costco (without profiles). I have friends with Canon 1Ds and a bunch of L lenses, who shoot jpegs. Not because they are too stupid to learn (they are computer programers), but they prefer to spend less time on the computer when not working.

Nobody claims they are too stupid to learn. Just that they have no interest in learning it. Why is that so difficult to understand? I am not too stupid to learn how car engines operate or chemical properties of gasoline, yet I have zero interest in doing so, beyond getting into a car to get me between points A and B, and stopping occasionally to refuel (in which case the only thing I need to know is that my car can take 87 octanes gas - do I need to know the definition of octane?)

Mr. Fong is like a gas station attendant who will tell you, seeing you car model, to either take 87, 89, or 91 gas. You, Andrew, on the other hand, are the guy in the white coat to whom I will go IF I am interested in knowing WHY my car needs 87, what octane is, and what happens inside the engine during combustion. Both of you guys serve a very useful purpose, just in a different way. I like you both, btw, for different reasons. If I need to know the science behind gasoline, I will NOT go to Mr. Fong. By the same token, if I am running low on gas and need a direction to the nearest gas station, you, sir, are the last person I would ask, because you would first give me an hour-long lecture on chemical properties of gasoline ;)

MarkM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 428
    • Alaska Photographer Mark Meyer
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #132 on: August 24, 2014, 04:42:41 pm »

Mr. Fong is like a gas station attendant who will tell you, seeing you car model, to either take 87, 89, or 91 gas. You, Andrew, on the other hand, are the guy in the white coat to whom I will go IF I am interested in knowing WHY my car needs 87, what octane is, and what happens inside the engine during combustion.

Well that's the problem isn't it? Mr. Fong IS [trying] to explain WHY. If he wasn't, this thread wouldn't exist.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #133 on: August 24, 2014, 04:43:43 pm »

Because, Andrew, I have friends and acquaintances that often have expensive cameras (because they are cool and they can afford it - the proverbial dentists) but ZERO interest in learning anything above how to post it on Facebook or print it at Costco (without profiles).
Great, then the data points are only valid for those friends unless you wish to extrapolate that the rest of Gary's audience or potential audience fall into the came camp and I don't know how you'd prove that.
Quote
Nobody claims they are too stupid to learn.
Sure are treating them as such.
Quote
Just that they have no interest in learning it.
Fine, then as I've said repeatedly the just use sRGB recommendation is a good one. HOW in any way does this dismiss the incorrect information Gary has provided about color management in his two videos? How can you justify such misinformation?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

supercurio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Hi! New here
    • Google+
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #134 on: August 24, 2014, 04:45:33 pm »

Because, Andrew, I have friends and acquaintances that often have expensive cameras (because they are cool and they can afford it - the proverbial dentists) but ZERO interest in learning anything above how to post it on Facebook or print it at Costco (without profiles). I have friends with Canon 1Ds and a bunch of L lenses, who shoot jpegs. Not because they are too stupid to learn (they are computer programers), but they prefer to spend less time on the computer when not working.

Nobody claims they are too stupid to learn. Just that they have no interest in learning it. Why is that so difficult to understand? I am not too stupid to learn how car engines operate or chemical properties of gasoline, yet I have zero interest in doing so, beyond getting into a car to get me between points A and B, and stopping occasionally to refuel (in which case the only thing I need to know is that my car can take 87 octanes gas - do I need to know the definition of octane?)

Mr. Fong is like a gas station attendant who will tell you, seeing you car model, to either take 87, 89, or 91 gas. You, Andrew, on the other hand, are the guy in the white coat to whom I will go IF I am interested in knowing WHY my car needs 87, what octane is, and what happens inside the engine during combustion. Both of you guys serve a very useful purpose, just in a different way. I like you both, btw, for different reasons. If I need to know the science behind gasoline, I will NOT go to Mr. Fong. By the same token, if I am running low on gas and need a direction to the nearest gas station, you, sir, are the last person I would ask, because you would first give me an hour-long lecture on chemical properties of gasoline ;)

It's a worthwhile analogy but maybe incomplete.

In the current state of affairs, Gary would tell you to pick a specific octane of gas (possibly the right one, possibly not depending on your priorities)
But then he would add that if you don't your brakes would stop working and the light might get blue instead of white.

And most people would be be like.. WUT?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 04:47:53 pm by supercurio »
Logged

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #135 on: August 24, 2014, 04:45:47 pm »

Regarding an experiment of people viewing test prints, I think it would be an interesting exercise IF DONE CORRECTLY.  There are several variables that would need to be addressed and the expertise and experience of the participants in photography and digital imaging would play a role.  Here is what I would do and the results I would expect:

I would use a wide-gamut printing device, probably a nice inkjet, that has a gamut that exceeds sRGB significantly in at least some dimensions.
I would make all test prints with that device and using the same paper (probably glossy).
I would have some pairs of comparison prints side-by-side and other pairs separated by distance (other side or room, different room).  Viewing conditions (lighting) should be as similar as possible.
I would have participants self-qualify as non-photographer, amateur photographer, or pro/serious enthusiast  (not perfect but probably a reasonable compromise).
I would use various images for the test, more-or-less as I am indicating below.  Which specific images are used is a pretty big deal.

Here is generally what I would expect:

- In general, the side-by-side comparisons would show the most difference.  Comparison prints separated by space would register less consistent differences, especially as the difference between prints drops.

- Test #1 = Raw file developed as sRGB vs. that same image developed as AdobeRGB and then incorrectly converted to sRGB (assigning sRGB rather than converting to sRGB).
This is essentially what Gary was demonstrating in his video.  In this case I would expect a high number of people, regardless of qualification, to see the difference and to identify the raw-to-sRGB image as the better image.  Even comparison prints separated by distance should be detected as significantly different, assuming the test image has a mix of colors including some that are fairly saturated.

- Test #2 = Raw file developed as sRGB vs. raw file developed as AdobeRGB.  Subjects in test image include a significant amount of color that is outside the sRGB gamut (specifically, greens, cyans, and yellows).
Here I would expect the number of people detecting differences to drop pretty significantly - particularly for non-photographers and for comparison prints separated by distance.  The famous Gary Fong "dullness" is a minor factor here.  It comes down to differences in color saturation of some colors, subtle hue shifts, and detail.

- Test #3 = Raw file developed as sRGB vs. raw file developed as AdobeRGB.  Colors in test image fall completely within the sRGB gamut (a portrait, perhaps, of a person wearing neutral clothing).
In this case I would expect the number of people (correctly) detecting a difference would drop to a very small number - probably only pros/serious enthusiasts using the side-by-side comparisons.  Here, the only difference should be very subtle differences in tonal gradations in gradients.  Even those few participants identifying a difference may have difficulty choosing which one they consider "best".

Obviously, there are a lot of ways such a test can be "gamed".

Now as related to Gary's video:

- There is little or no relationship between what such an experiment would show and most of the criticisms being leveled at Gary's video.  Most people are agreeing that sRGB is a pretty good choice for beginners and people who are not interested in or not ready for color management.  Most people are criticizing Gary's video for how he explains WHY sRGB is a pretty good choice for those people.  More than 4 minutes of the 5-minute video is not even necessary.  If Gary wants to keep it simple, then keep it simple.  He doesn't need to add a bunch of incorrect and confusing crap.  If someone continues to ask "Why sRGB?", he can just say "trust me" and recite his resume. That's what he gets around to doing anyway.  He might as well save 5 minutes and move on to the next subject.

- Gary has shown in the video comments and here that has at least one of the following:
A. Poor reading comprehension
B. Poor writing skills
C. Limited time resulting in A or B
D. A conscious intent of misrepresenting what others have written.
It appears likely to me that he will, at best, likely misinterpret any results of an experiment and, at worst, manipulate the test and/or results to suit himself.

- As evidenced by other videos on YouTube, he has been giving this same spiel for at least 3 years.  He has not only painted himself into a corner on the subject, he has built a brick wall between him and the rest of the room while the paint dried.  He will likely apply any trick necessary (denial, obfuscation, misdirection, insults, reliance on his resume, references to others making the same mistakes, etc.) to avoid admitting he made a mistake.  Ultimately and unfortunately, he will likely use all this discussion as proof that his "simple" explanation is much better - that it is impossible for the "color nerds" to explain this in less than 100 pages.  Of course this is wrong - the somewhat complex explanations are only necessary in trying to correct his "simple" mistakes.  There are many, many alternative ways to explain this to a beginner audience in a simple AND correct manner that won't inhibit their more advanced learning in the future.
Logged

garyfong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #136 on: August 24, 2014, 04:51:20 pm »

Gary, you are assuming here that the camera you will use in this test is color calibrated.

However unless you calibrate it yourself with a very precise methodology, your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all.
To make your test valid, you cannot use as source a non-calibrated input (your camera).

Why?

Think about that:
You'll compare a non-calibrated input printed to a non-calibrated output with the real color checker itself.

The results of such test won't mean anything.
If I was not clear enough, the test itself and its results are entirely irrelevant due to methodology error.

If you want to get closer to something relevant, print the color checker images encoded in sRGB and Adobe RGB you can find on http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/ColorChecker.htm
Those are the color patches read by spectrophotometers, which will be a lot more accurate than cameras JPEG outputs, all of them being intentionally tweaked to look more flattering and follow a manufacturer-specific "signature look".

Sorry to tell you your idea doesn't work but, well, you asked :)

What is so funny about shooting two images in daylight with different color spaces?  
What will this prove?  If sRGB is preferred by more people, the same number of people, then sRGB is a valid color management system for photography.  If AdobeRGB blows it away, then all of your work (calibrating your camera!) taking many tests under many conditions, using just the right paper, etc. won't matter because AdobeRGB is the hands-down color path to stunningly better color.

This test won't work for you, I get it.  But it needs to be done to shed some light on if it is really worthwhile to have to shoot in AdobeRGB to preserve the rich color detail you're saying.  People should decide if it is worth it or not, when choosing a workflow.

I had no idea that, "your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all".  Have you alerted Canon or Nikon or Sony?  Are they not accurate at all?  Will Crockett is wrong, Ken Rockwell is wrong, I'm wrong, and now the camera manufacturers are all making cameras with no accurate color "at all"?

You can be interviewed or not, I'm going to read these comments on the video.  I think it would just be better if you got on screen and told us what was wrong with our results.  I some idea how the test is going to go, but I'm not declaring anything here until the results come in.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #137 on: August 24, 2014, 04:54:10 pm »

Regarding an experiment of people viewing test prints, I think it would be an interesting exercise IF DONE CORRECTLY.
Absolutely agree, that's not going to happen. As to your testing protocols, I'm in full agreement.
Quote
He doesn't need to add a bunch of incorrect and confusing crap.
That's really IS the bottom line!
Quote
 - Gary has shown in the video comments and here that has at least one of the following:
A. Poor reading comprehension
When I suggested that, I was called a racist. Just warning you  :o
As for all your further analyses, a brilliant appraisal of the situation.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

supercurio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Hi! New here
    • Google+
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #138 on: August 24, 2014, 04:56:51 pm »

Eyeball, from what I've seen, colors profiles made by Adobe from RAW data (matrices + dcp) are not really accurate, sometimes even really grossly inaccurate.
A concrete example I'm playing with right now is the Panasonic GH4.
Adobe color profile (ForwardMatrix + DCP) is way off, they messed up really bad.

Based on my own measurements, I'm afraid using a camera as input is not applicable for the test Gary is trying to do.

I didn't study yet profiles made by other RAW converters vendors tho, maybe a worthwhile color accuracy could be obtained this way (depending on the camera used and the quality of the specific profile used for it)
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #139 on: August 24, 2014, 05:00:09 pm »

I had no idea that, "your regular commercial camera doesn't have accurate colors at all".  Have you alerted Canon or Nikon or Sony?  Are they not accurate at all?  Will Crockett is wrong, Ken Rockwell is wrong, I'm wrong, and now the camera manufacturers are all making cameras with no accurate color "at all"?
The statement about accuracy has a great deal of credence but if you can't understand how to treat RGB working spaces, you'll never understand the difference between colorimetry and scene referred imagery and output referred imagery. Let's not even go there.
Quote
You can be interviewed or not, I'm going to read these comments on the video.  I think it would just be better if you got on screen and told us what was wrong with our results.  I some idea how the test is going to go, but I'm not declaring anything here until the results come in.
In no way would I have anything to do with your audience thinking I'd legitimize what you are trying to do. It's hugely flawed based on what you've told us just like your two videos.
Now what I've proposed and you've ignored is far smarter for everyone but it seems your best interest isn't at heart, let alone your audience. What you could do but will not is allow the LuLa audience to peer review the video before you post it. But what's the point. You're going to use a target that several people have already told you would invalidate the test. That alone is reason to ridicule you and anyone who has anything to do with this new video.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 27   Go Up