[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Default colors vs. gamma
From: |
Alex Perez |
Subject: |
Re: Default colors vs. gamma |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:02:20 -0700 (PDT) |
On 11 Oct 2004, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
[snip]
> And for gamma-newbies around here like me, why should the gamma be 1.6
> rather than 1.0? Why shouldn't we keep 'absolute' values for colors
> (gamma=1.0) everywhere?
This is another point of contention I have with these 1.6 gamma zealots.
1.6 is an arbitrary gamma value, and is not correct for every (quite
possibly even most) monitors, but "they" won't tell you that. They just
blindly tell everyone to set their gamma to 1.6, and the ignorant and
innocent newbies do it, often without question. Several of these
high-gamma advocates don't even understand what they're recommending to
people (this is of course my opinion and my opinion only).
For a brief and easy-to-understand overview of Gamma, read
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm . For a more in-depth
explanation, see http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma.html
I urge everyone here to administer themselves a very large amount of
sanity before making brash and ill-informed arguments about what someone
else's gamma SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be.
Cheers,
Alex Perez
"Your gamma is either set to 1.6, or you are with the terrorists!"
Re: Default colors vs. gamma, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/10/11
Re: Default colors vs. gamma, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/10/12