Linear Color Space Issue

I've run into an interesting issue using 16bit linear exrs in AE.
All of my 3D footage is rendered in 16 bit linear space, and I am rendering to sRGB IEC611966-2.1 in AE.
I have various color corrections in the comp.  When I export a frame from the comp, and then reimport that frame into the same comp, it is brighter than the comp that it was exported from.
I've exported to both png and openEXR with the same result.
In PShop, I've confirmed that the exported png and exr are identical in color (after reducing the exr to 8bit).  I also know that the color corrections have been applied in the saved frames, because I screen captured the AE screen and pasted it on top of the saved frames in PShop - no color shift.
My guess is that the re-imported frames are not in the correct colorspace, but I've tried a few using 'interpret footage' w/no luck.
Any ideas?

Never mind.
I had an exposure effect on the layer...

Similar Messages

  • Working in Linear color space confusion

    When comping in Nuke we usually use Rec. 709 footage and comp in Linear color space. We can then preview in sRGB or Rec. 709 or whatever othe color space to check what it will look like.
    In after effects how do we achieve the same?
    You would think that:
    1/ Interpret footage as Rec 709. No problem here.
    2/ Set Project to Linear colorspace. But this is were the weird stuff happens. Since you have to select a color space other than linear and THEN tick linear compositing. That is the same as saying that you want composite in two different colorspaces at the same time? Thats is confusing so what is the right way of working here to composite in Linear cool space to get after effect to act the way Nuke does?
    3/ Then Simulate Output  -> Rec 709
    Thank you in advance.

    Actually, it seems AE doesn't really do it correctly without specifying color space and clicking "linearize working space" as you can see here (These two images is just a 3D render where I've added the diffuse, reflection, refraction and indirect passes together.): http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s443/lostparanoia/AE_LWF_error.jpg
    Also, the somewhat correct image is not 100% correct either because of (I assume) the color space adjustments that after effects applies.
    Another issue when working in sRGB 2.1 (linear) space is that I can no longer get the correct colors for my solids.
    Lets say I need to color pick some company's brand color to use as a background in my comp. When I color pick it, it will be in the completely wrong gamma, but I can't figure out any way to correct it so that it becomes the correct colour. I've tried applying a Color profile converter, and I've tried a inverse 2.2 gamma (0.455). Nothing seems to work. It's just a completely different colour.
    So my question is, is there still no way of using a proper linear compositing workflow in AE? And how do you work with solids and the colour picker in sRGB (linear)?

  • Color Space Issue: One Black On Screen But Two Blacks When Printed

    I work at a print shop (using Windows 7 and Adobe Acrobat X) and often receive PDFs from customers that were created from PowerPoint. These PowerPoint PDFs often present a printing issue when there are black objects in the file.
    On screen, there will be only one consistent shade of black but when the document is printed, it becomes evident that there are actually two different blacks in the file, one darker than the other.
    I have done a lot of online research (including these forums) in an attempt to find a complete solution that will always work for these problem-files but have yet to find one.
    I know that the issue stems from the fact that PowerPoint uses RGB colors and not CMYK like printers but trying to manually convert color spaces in Adobe Acrobat Pro to be uniform did not help. Whether I convert the entire document's color space to CMYK or just individual objects, I always get the two shades of black when printing. Can anyone explain why this isn't working for me?
    I have used the Output Preview tool to determine that the two blacks in the documents are almost always C0-M0-Y0-K100 and C75-M68-Y67-K90. I have read that a custom Preflight fix can be created to seek out all instances of one black and convert it to the other but I did not have success when trying this method. I must be doing something wrong. After running my fix, I always get a message about how no issues are found. If someone can post a step-by-step guide on how to create a Preflight fix that will resolve this issue, I would really appreciate it.
    I have uploaded three sample PDFs that I'm currently working with. Please feel free to review and troubleshoot them. My goal is to uncover a solution that I can apply to all three files to get them to print with one consistent black.
    https://workspaces.acrobat.com/?w=j3nHuvLCo9XWHliKEpNX-A
    Thank you all so much in advance for any insight you can offer.

    So sorry about that. I have Published all three files now so they should be accessible to the public.
    ColorSpace1.pdf
    https://workspaces.acrobat.com/?d=W9QuI9UZSYRmGYnvoaS44w
    ColorSpace2.pdf
    https://workspaces.acrobat.com/?d=-AQHyT*HMSawAW-swQ9SVA
    ColorSpace3.pdf
    https://workspaces.acrobat.com/?d=DWuc0Dp-M8SKqnX6mTNnfw
    Thank you for the reply!

  • Color Space Issue?

    This is probably a very simple issue which I'm hoping someone can easily figure out. I process my images to taste in LR4 and then export them as jpgs in the sRGB color space. When I open them in programs like "Windows Picture Viewer" they look just like they do in LR but when I upload it to my website or view it in a program like IrfanView the images look terribly over-saturated. I should also mention that it seems like I need to add quite a bit more saturation than normal to get them looking right in LR. I'm guessing that there is some setting that I have wrong. Can any one help me figure out what it might be?
    Thanks! I really appreciate this great forum and all the helpful people on here!
    Erik Stensland

    Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață wrote:
    4) Chrome IS NOT color-managed. Use the "--enable-monitor-profile" command-line switch.
    I believe that even with that switch, it ignores image profiles, assuming all images to be sRGB.  In other words, it can be persuaded to respect monitor profiles but not image profiles.  At best it does half the job! 
    It used to be that way, but I've not tested it recently. 

  • Color Space Issue with Wide-Gamut monitor

    Since getting my new (and carefully calibrated) LaCie 324 monitor, I have noticed that RAW (and maybe other) images exported from Lightroom as
    sRGB jpegs look washed out and slightly green when viewed outside of Lightroom (IE8, Firefox, ACDSee, windows 7 viewer). It seems not to matter whether the external application horors embedded color space profiles or not, since the unmanaged ones assume sRGB.
    When I bring one of these jpegs into PhotoShop it still looks bad, and not what I see in Lightroom. However, if I Assign the Adobe RGB profile to the image, it immediately looks like the Lightroom version. And if I then Convert that image to sRGB and save it, it looks fine everywhere, even on an uncalibrated standard Dell TN LCD display.
    Any ideas what I might be seeing here. A friend with the same monitor has the same problem, which is what is leading me to suspect the monitor.
    The first image here is converted from Lightroom with sRGB color space. The second was first assigned the Adobe RGB color profile and then converted and saved out again as a jpeg.
    Converted Only

    I downloaded and ran the program. My version number appears to be 2.1 if I read the numbers right.
    I am still at a loss as to why my sRGB jpegs only look right if I assign the wrong profile to them.
    Here are the settings in Windows 7 for color management. The highlighted profile is the one just created for my monitor. Display 2 is my main display. Note the "viewing conditions" setting on the advanced tab. Do you think the rendering intent might be at fault here? In Lightroom, should I use Perceptual over Relative or vice versa?

  • A Mercury linear color delimma... bad transitions vs. bad animation

    Am I missing something here? I'm writing this as sort of a PSA... if you aren't aware of all sides of this issue, I hope you read the second half because you may not realize it's affecting you, too.
    When I enable CUDA or Maximum Render Quality, I basically can't use any one-sided transitions. They look wrong and "pop" at the ends.
    Apparently, Adobe forgot to rewrite any of their transitions for a linear color space, so Mercury+CUDA basically "breaks" all the transitions that ship with CS5, causing them to render differently than they do in their originally intended gamma of 1.8. I've heard they've added a linear-compatible transition into CS5.5 called "Film dissolve", but there aren't any in CS5. This seems like a pretty huge oversight... I'm surprised they still haven't fixed it in a patch to the original CS5.
    So why not just turn off Maximum Render Quality and CUDA during output?
    Well, there's another big problem.
    If you do any kind of stills animation a la "the Ken Burns Effect" in Premiere, you'll quickly find Premiere leaves a "pixel shimmer" or "ripple" effect across the animation because it is using substandard methods to antialias motion. Looks like a cheap NLE from 2002.
    So, you're left to choose... do you want bad one-sided dissolves or bad animation? Personally, I believe a good NLE should not leave identifiable footprints in the edit. If you happen to have have *both* in a Premiere CS5 timeline and it goes out on TV, I'll be able to "out" your NLE as Premiere because no matter which output setting you choose, one or the other problem will show up.
    SOLUTION 1: Use AE. The simplest solution is probably to avoid Maximum Render quality and avoid keyframing any Motion parameters. Do it all in After Effects.
    SOLUTION 2: Use CS4. It may be possible to edit your sequence with all the benefits of MPE and CUDA, and then send your timeline back to Premiere CS4 and have Premiere/Encoder CS4 render it at max quality. I haven't tested this yet, but I'm intrigued by this possibility. I'll try it soon and report back.
    Hopefully I am missing something here. I'm an Avid/FCP/AE guy who is still relatively new to Premiere.
    P.S. A second issue is lower thirds and alpha graphics. I bet you made all of yours in After Effects with a 1.8 gamma, didn't you? As far as I know, Premiere does not ship with any video effects that easily control the gamma curve of the alpha channel, so there's no quick fix for all of your currently rendered transparent graphics.

    I know if I use the MPE in GPU mode transitions between two PIPs will get a funny black border aroud the PIP. CUDA can do some funny things when transitions and filters that do not have CUDA support are used with GPU enabled. I can only hope Adobe is getting ready to switch to Open CL or Open GL because there are a few glitches with Nvidia's CUDA technology. For Quality I almost think CS 4 was better but you don't get the same amount of realtime. I hope PP CS 6.0 is true broadcast quality instead of just realtime previews. Edius can do it with out the use of GPU acceleration.  I think CUDA is a step in the right direction but I also think it needs a bit more time to mature.

  • Is there a way to assign Color Spaces in AME (Adobe Media Encoder) CC?

    I am trying to output h.264 video for a web project and cannot seem to get sRGB color match when rendering out from AE.
    I see it in AE's native renderer, but not in AME.
    Thanks.

    AME (and Premiere Pro) does not support color management in the way that After Effects does. Via Dynamic Link, which is how AME reads After Effects comps, the color-space-adjusted pixels are not corrected for screen display.
    To get the results you want, add an adjustment layer to the top of the layer stack in the comp and apply the Color Profile Converter effect. Set the Output Profile to Rec.709 (sRGB is practically identical and will also work, but Dynamic Link uses Rec.709 internally so is a better match). This forces After Effects to transform the adjusted pixels into a non-linearized color space that looks correct.
    Note that while the CPC effect is active and View > Display Color Management is enabled (it is enabled by default), this extra layer of color transforms will make the comp appear incorrect in After Effects, at the same time the comp will now look correct in AME or Premiere Pro. Disable Display Color Management to make the appearance of the comp in After Effects match what you see in AME or Premiere Pro. While working on the comp, however, you probably want to work with Display Color Management enabled and the adjustment layer disabled.
    Under the hood, when color management is enabled in After Effects, the pixels it writes into the cache include the appropriate color transforms for the settings you have chosen. When the comp is displayed in the Composition panel in After Effects, an additional transform is added to the screen buffer pixels (not the pixels in the cache) to make it look correct on your computer screen, or not if you have disabled Display Color Management. When the pixels are read through Dynamic Link, no display color management happens, nor does AME or Premiere Pro apply any, so you get the same appearance as having Display Color Management disabled in After Effects.
    Make sense?

  • Color space, Windows Media 9

    Hi,
    I´m using AE CS3 and try to render a Windows Media 9 file. But I don´t get the colors right. The blacks are too light and the whites too dark (I´ve checked the file in both VLC and Media Player). I guess it could be a color space issue. In AE I use HDTV (Rec. 709) color space. But not sure if this is the right choice. Have also tried not to use any color space, but that doesn´t help either. Thankful for any advice.
    Thanks

    Rec 709 as a project setting should not affect output in any way, as it covers the full 0-255 8bit RGB value ranges. They should only get limited when using other profiles and working in other bit-depths.. The only other thing that in my experience might cause color shifts is odd combinations of older Windows Media components with the latest AE. In these cases, the ranges may be misinterpreted. As a last thing, also check hardware acceleration options in your players. Sometimes simply a color otpion introduced by your graphics card can make things go crazy. In any case, I would, as a minor, update Windows Media player to the latest and see, if it helps.
    Mylenium

  • Color space question for photoshop cs on mac os10

    I'm sure this has been beaten to death here before. I've been dealing with color space issues for months now, and I'm about at my wits end.
    I realize that I should be saving in sRGB in order to get the same looking photo on the web that I get in photoshop. I go image-mode- convert to profile- destination space- profile: srgb profile. I've tried saving for web. I check "ICC" when I do that. When I just save an image as a jpeg (from a tiff), I check the box that says, "embed color profile." Still, my images look washed out on my website (which I made with iweb)- which I'm trying to put my images in a new web interface (flash palette) and my images STILL look washed out. The weird thing is, I NEVER have this issue when I upload images to photobucket or to the photography forum that I frequent.
    What the heck am I doing wrong??
    Thanks,
    Hope

    >> images are still a bit washed out with a warmish/ yellow cast to them, particularly, my black and white images
    Here is a simple test to help evaluate if the monitor profile is reasonably good:
    Open a RGB file in Photoshop (flatten if not already flattened).
    Press M key> Drag a selection> Com+Shift+U (Desaturate).
    Com+Z (to toggle back and forth).
    If the unsaturated selection looks neutral you've got a reasonably fair monitor profile.
    If selection has color casts (not neutral) -- you have a bad monitor profile
    +++++
    Here is a simple test to help evaluate if a bad monitor profile is whacking out your Photoshop color:
    Monitors/Displays (control panel)> Color> highlight AppleRGB or sRGB (don't run Calibrate), quit and reboot.
    If the Photoshop colors are back under control, then the problem was most surely a bad monitor profile go back into Monitors/Displays> Color and Calibrate a good profile highlight (load) sRGB, or preferably, the monitor's OEM profile as a starting point.
    If you are using a puck, it is likely defective; or your monitor hardware is the culprit...search it on Google by model number

  • Trying to Export - Quicktime to DPX - in Linear (R709) Color space NOT LOG

    Hello,
    I am trying to export an image sequence through compressor from a Linear (R709) color space. When I try to do the dpx image sequence output it changes the files to LOG.
    Is there a way to pass the material through without any color space changes?
    Thank-you,
    Carl

    FYI, In the Inspector, and filtes, COLOR tab> Output Color Space: Default for Encoder (CAN NOT BE CHANGED - It is greyed out)

  • Multiprocessing color space render issue

    After installing the newest update of After Effects CC 2014 I am having troubles with my renders while using multiprocessing.
    The color space I'm working in is a linearized 32bpc sRGB IEC61966-2.1  When I render without multiprocessing turned on, the render turns out fine, but with it turned on the resulting render is way too bright, as though the gamma has been lifted way too high. I would really like to be able to use multi-processing, since it cuts my render times down to a fifth of what they would be otherwise. Any advice would be much appreciated.
    Also, just for fun I took my file back into After Effects CC (12.2)  and tried rendering it with multiprocessing without changing any settings and the render turned out just fine, making me think that this is specifically a CC 2014 problem.

    This is a bug that was introduced in After Effects CC 2014.1 (13.1). My apologies about this.
    First things first: to work around this bug you will need to disable multiprocessing in order to get a color-accurate render, via either RAM preview or via the Render Queue. Alternately, you can use multiprocessing but to get expected colors you must disable color management (set the project's working space to None), or if using Rec. 709 or sRGB you can leave the working space enabled and disable only the Linearize Working Space option.
    If you choose to leave multiprocessing enabled and disable color management, you can create the same color transform by applying the Color Profile Converter effect. For example, before rendering via the render queue, pre-compose your final comp and apply the effect to the pre-comp.
    We will evaluate a fix for this bug for a future update to After Effects CC 2014. An update is scheduled to release soon (this week or next), but a fix for this bug won't be included; this will have to wait for the next update.
    Under the hood, here's what happened to cause this bug:
    In After Effects CC 2014.1 (13.1), a color transform to Rec. 709 is automatically added to frames delivered via Dynamic Link when color management is enabled in the project. This is a new behavior in this version, which solved a problem with gamma and/or color shifts when sending frames to Premiere Pro or Adobe Media Encoder, which assume that all incoming Dynamic Link frames are Rec. 709.
    When multiprocessing is enabled in After Effects, it uses Dynamic Link to communicate with the subprocesses. In this case, After Effects knows what color profile is being used; no additional color correction is necessary.
    Combining these two behaviors we get this bug: an unnecessary color transform to Rec. 709 is being applied to frames rendered when multiprocessing is enabled. We failed to take the multiprocessing case into account when we added the new behavior.
    If your project's working space is already Rec. 709 or sRGB (which are functionally the same), you wouldn't notice a difference, since the additional color transform results in no change. Using any other profile would cause a color shift. Enabling the Linearize Working Space option with any profile will introduce a gamma shift.
    Again, my apologies about this bug.

  • Color space export issues...

    Well. This has been going on for a while. Sometimes it doesnt happen but most of the time when I export my images in srgb the view once uploaded is much depreciated. I proof in srgb 2.1 and embed upon export. The same thing happens with using the boarderfx export plugin. In addition, it seems to happen more after exporting to PS for edit and then exporting the tiffs to jpg later. But happens with normal jpg/raws as well. Thanks a lot for all the help and hopefully I can get this solved
    Aaron

    I don't mean "Quick Look" in Leopard. I mean Quick Preview in Aperture (a little button in the lower right corner that turns yellow when selected). I believe that, although not as seductive as the native screen display, Quick Preview is more accurate.
    Here is what I mean by accurate:
    • Quick Preview changes the display significantly and matches closely prints made from Aperture when printed on the paper for which I have selected the proof profile (in Aperture under View / Proofing Profile).
    • Quick Preview displays an image that is nearly identical to that printed from Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat when the same paper and profile are used.
    • Prints made from Aperture are nearly identical to those made from PS, ID, and Acrobat using the same parameters.
    • Quick Preview displays an image that is nearly identical to that displayed in Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat when the same print profile is selected for soft proofing in these applications.
    There is a wild card though: these days I print mostly using perceptual rendering intent. Aperture does not appear to provide any direct control over rendering intent or black point comp for softproofing. Native display in Aperture (with the correct profile selected for on screen proofing) is much closer to a PS soft proof of the same image using RelCol rendering intent in PS. In this case the difference seems to be perhaps in the implementation of black point comp.
    It would sure be nice if we had full documentation of this stuff and didn't have to make suppositions about its functionality based on empirical data.
    If you know of a way to soft proof in Aperture (that permits my workflow instead of imposing one) that allows for simultaneous editing I would be much obliged.
    OK, I just did a little more poking around. Quick Preview appears to preview the image in the working color space, and what I was calling "native display mode" is using the selected soft proof profile. But on my system it is not accurate with my printer profiles. Not even close. Like I said this might be due to lack of control over rendering intent and black point compensation. (I also just noted that the soft proof display does not incorporate BPC. You can see this by creating a preview through the print dialog and comparing the result to the screen display.)
    Though soft proofing seems to be broken, at least for me, I have answered my own question: My working space is close enough to (and obviously includes the full gamut of) my print profiles that I can select my working space profile for soft proofing (which it does use accurately since Aperture is also using the same profile to convert the RAW file to for export) which will allow me to edit while soft proofing in a valid color space with consistent rendering intent and application of BPC.
    Flame off, over and out.

  • Lightroom's 4 color "spaces"

    I’m working on designing an advanced photography course. This course makes use of Lightroom and Photoshop in the photographic workflow.
    I’m learning and researching myself as I go along, and I feel I have reached a ceiling on what I can work out from the sources at my disposal thus far.
    So I am turning here for help.
    I am trying to clarify how tones and colours are affected from the actual scene through to the printed page. This might seem like overkill to some. However, there is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion, not to mention heated discussions amongst photographers about these issues. I’m experimenting with metering and colour / tone targets and my calculations are only meaningful if I understand how tones and colours are affected at every stage of the workflow.
    Here’s how I understand it:
    There are 4 (sort of) Colour “spaces” in Develop where a real-time dynamic preview of an image is rendered
    1.       The “viewing space” (ProPhotoRGB Chromaticity co-ordinates, sRGB gamma)
    2.       The “computational space” (ProPhotoRGB chromaticity co-ordinates, linear gamma – “MelissaRGB”)
    (Martin Evening’s Lightroom 3 book published by Adobe press - Appendix B, section on color space page 628-632)
    Below that, things get a little fuzzy. According to Jeff Schewe (Real World Camera RAW for CS5, page 32) there is a sort of
    3.            “Native Camera Space” and of course there is the
    4.            RAW data in the file on disk.
    So to generate the dynamically rendered preview, the image goes through the four “layers” as follows (from bottom to top). This is almost certainly flawed, but one has to start somewhere when trying to work things out :-)
    1. The RAW file is read from disk. Colorimetric interpretation is performed using a camera profile (e.g. Adobe Standard for whatever camera it is you are using). This process puts the image data into “Native camera space” (“Plotted” onto CIE XYZ with D50 white point)
    2. In “Native camera space, the scene white balance (as selected by user, guessed by Lightroom or reported by camera) as well as additional camera calibration panel matrix tweaks “informs” the colorimetric conversion into Lightroom’s “computational space” e.g. Melissa RGB. The colorimetric definition of camera RGB primaries and white is re-DEFINED. The demosaicing as well as chromatic aberration corrections are performed in “native camera space”
    3. Almost all image processing calculations occur computationally in the  “MelissaRGB Lightroom computational space”
    4. What is displayed on the screen, however, has an sRGB tone curve applied. This represents the “viewing” space. The histogram is generated from this and the RGB colour percentage readouts are generated from this as well. In addition, some slider controls from user input are weighted back through the tone curve into the computational space below.
    Could someone from Adobe kindly help me to clarify the steps? Eric are you reading this? :-)
    Thanks in advance

    Sandy - Thanks for the link. The spreadsheets you posted on your site is quite helpful.
    Jao – I think what you said goes to the heart of what I am trying to achieve here: “Photograph a grey target at the exact same exposure with the exact same lighting but with different cameras and you'll end up with different values in the raw files” Which is why I encourage photographers to experiment with their cameras in order to understand exactly how the camera will respond in the heat of a real shoot. Set up a scene; take a picture, open in Lightroom. What is clipped and why? Use a reflective spot meter. Repeat. Use a hand held incident meter. Repeat. How much can you reliably recover? Are you happy with what your meter considers the mid-point (and what you set your exposure for on the camera) or do you need to compensate? Just how much latitude do you have between what your camera histogram shows as a blown out highlight and what Lightroom shows as a blown out highlight. This relates to tone. I could go on with more examples, but by now, I am (hopefully) making more sense.
    I’m merely trying to clarify that which is already public in order to form a coherent mental picture. And by mental picture I do not mean an accurate representation of the minutiae and maths involved. Think of a subway map. It represents a bird’s eye view of a transportation system in a logical fashion, yet it bears almost no resemblance to the cartographical reality of the physical topography. I really don’t care where the tunnels go, how they were dug, how they are maintained or where they twist and turn. What I AM looking for is a logical (not physical) map. This map tells me where the different lines begin and end, and where I can change from one line to the other. The most important quality of the map as a whole is that it provides context. You can tell, at a glance, how different lines interact with each other and even how it links to other entities such as bus stations or public landmarks.
    As many have rightfully pointed out, I should not have to care about the maths/secret sauce/internal calculations. And I don’t. In addition, I am a very happy Lightroom user and I am very comfortable using it. I know what a user needs to know to get his picture from A to B. There is no shortage of information on how to accomplish that.
    It might help if I illustrate what I am trying to do below:
    Please excuse the low resolution, the maximum height allowed for upload is 600 pixels. The picture below goes on the bottom left of the "layer" picture above.
    Even though there are certainly many mistakes in my diagram, this is a helpful visualisation. I derived this diagram from publicly available information. As the subway map, this is a logical (not physical) representation that provides context in a visual form. With a little help from people like Eric I am sure I can correct and expand it. The net result is an enhanced understanding of Lightroom and ACR and where it fits into the photographic process, both in terms of tone and colour.
    I am not posting the entire chart here since I am not even certain that a 4 “layered” representation is an appropriate logical representation. I posted the spine of the chart with the 4 “layers” and one part that elaborates on the colorimetric interpretation between the two bottom layers. Comments and corrections are welcomed. And I am convinced that this can be accomplished without divulging anything confidential.

  • Color Space and Bit Depth - What Makes Sense?

    I'm constantly confused about which color space and bit depth to choose for various things.
    Examples:
    - Does it make any sense to choose sRGB and 16-bits? (I thought sRGB was 8-bit by nature, no?)
    - Likewise for AdobeRGB - are the upper 8-bits empty if you use 16-bits?
    - What is the relationship between Nikon AdobeWide RGB, and AdobeRGB? - if a software supports one, will it support the other?
    - ProPhoto/8-bits - is there ever a reason?...
    I could go on, but I think you get the idea...
    Any help?
    Rob

    So, it does not really make sense to use ProPhoto/8 for output (or for anything else I guess(?)), even if its supported, since it is optimized for an extended gamut, and if your output device does not encompass the gamut, then you've lost something since your bits will be spread thinner in the "most important" colors.
    Correct, you do not want to do prophotoRGB 8bit anything. It is very easy to get posterization with it. Coincidentally, if you print from Lightroom and let the driver manage and do not check 16-bit output, Lightroom outputs prophotoRGB 8bits to the driver. This is rather annoying as it is very easy to get posterizaed prints this way.
    It seems that AdobeRGB has been optimized more for "important" colors and so if you have to scrunch down into an 8-bit jpeg, then its the best choice if supported - same would hold true for an 8-bit tif I would think (?)
    Correct on both counts. If there is color management and you go 8 bits adobeRGB is a good choice. This is only really true for print targets though as adobeRGB encompasses more of a typical CMYK gamut than sRGB. For display targets such as the web you will be better off always using sRGB as 99% of displays are closer to that and so you don't gain anything. Also, 80% of web browsers is still not color managed.
    On a theoretical note: I still don't understand why if image data is 12 or 14 bits and the image format uses 16 bits, why there has to be a boundary drawn around the gamut representation. But for practical purposes, maybe it doesn't really matter.
    Do realitze hat the original image in 12 to 14 bits is in linear gamma as that is how the sensor reacts to light. However formats for display are always gamma corrected for efficiency, because the human eye reacts non-linearly to light and because typical displays have a gamma powerlaw response of brightness/darkness. Lightroom internally uses a 16-bit linear space. This is more bits than the 12 or 14 bits simply to avoid aliasing errors and other numeric errors. Similarly the working space is chosen larger than the gamut cameras can capture in order to have some overhead that allows for flexibility and avoids blowing out in intermediary stages of the processing pipeline. You have to choose something and so prophotoRGB, one of the widest RGB spaces out there is used. This is explained quite well here.
    - Is there any reason not to standardize 8-bit tif or jpg files on AdobeRGB and leave sRGB for the rare cases when legacy support is more important than color integrity?
    Actually legacy issues are rampant. Even now, color management is very spotty, even in shops oriented towards professionals. Also, arguably the largest destination for digital file output, the web, is almost not color managed. sRGB remains king unfortunately. It could be so much better if everybody used Safari or Firefox, but that clearly is not the case yet.
    - And standardize 16 bit formats on the widest gamut supported by whatever you're doing with it? - ProPhoto for editing, and maybe whatever gamut is recommended by other software or hardware vendors for special purposes...
    Yes, if you go 16 bits, there is no point not doing prophotoRGB.
    Personally, all my web photos are presented through Flash, which supports AdobeRGB even if the browser proper does not. So I don't have legacy browsers to worry about myself.
    Flash only supports non-sRGB images if you have enabled it yourself. NONE of the included flash templates in Lightroom for example enable it.
    that IE was the last browser to be upgraded for colorspace support (ie9)
    AFAIK (I don't do windows, so I have not tested IE9 myself), IE 9 still is not color managed. The only thing it does is when it encounters a jpeg with a ICC profile different than sRGB is translate it to sRGB and send that to the monitor without using the monitor profile. That is not color management at all. It is rather useless and completely contrary to what Microsoft themselves said many years ago well behaved browsers should do. It is also contrary to all of Windows 7 included utilities for image display. Really weird! Wide gamut displays are becoming more and more prevalent and this is backwards. Even if IE9 does this halfassed color transform, you can still not standardize on adobeRGB as it will take years for IE versions to really switch over. Many people still use IE6 and only recently has my website's access switched over to mostly IE8. Don't hold your breath for this.
    Amazingly, in 2010, the only correctly color managed browser on windows is still Safari as Firefox doesn't support v4 icc monitor profiles and IE9 doesn't color manage at all except for translating between spaces to sRGB which is not very useful. Chrome can be made to color manage on windows apparently with a command line switch. On Macs the situation is better since Safari, Chrome (only correctly on 10.6) and Firefox (only with v2 ICC monitor profiles) all color manage. However, on mobile platforms, not a single browser color manages!

  • Camera calibration tab and camera color space

    Hi, I need a confirmation about the hue and saturation sliders on the camera calibration tab. They are there for fine tuning the camera color space primaries in a DNG profile? Thanks a lot.

    Hello, here I'm again.
    I'm probably in the wrong forum, because I can't tell you anything about the DNG secrets
    (though I have the specs).
    About your second question (more an issue for a color science forum), I've found something:
    Estimation of the primaries for a digital camera:
    Please refer to these docs:
    (1)
    Concerning the Calculation of the Color Gamut in a Digital Camera
    Francisco Martínez-Verdú et al.
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F %2Frua.ua.es%2Fdspace%2Fbitstream%2F10045%2F973%2F1%2Fproof_final.pdf&ei=uL8UU8-dKYO9ygORs IKADQ&usg=AFQjCNGKNGHQZJoHu_dc2JwQwtLXOpsTBQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.bGQ&cad=rja
    (2)
    http://docs-hoffmann.de/leastsqu16112006.pdf
    Given is an equation
    (*) X = C R
    We have two applications:
    (1)  Original question
    X = Matrix  X1 X2 ... Xm
                    Y1 Y2 ... Ym
                     Z1 Z2 ... Zm
    m=41 values in each row for CIE CMFs (color matching functions) 380nm...780nm
    R = Matrix  R1 R2 ... Rm
                     G1 G2 ... Gm
                     B1 B2 ... Bm  
    41 values in each row for the sensor sensitivities for red, green and blue CCD array elements
    Matrix C is found by solving equation (*), using the pseudoinverse.
    Matrix C contains the XYZ-coordinates of the primaries red, green, blue as columns 1, 2 and 3.
    (2) About the mathematics
    X = Matrix  X1 X2  ...  Xm
                     Y1 Y2 ... Ym
                     Z1 Z2 ... Zm
    m=24 values for the GretagMacbeth ColorChecker
    R = Matrix  R1 R2 ... Rm
                      G1 G2 ... Gm
                      B1 B2 ... Bm  
    24 values in each row for the RGB results als delivered by the camera, for instance in sRGB.
    Matrix C contains the XYZ-coordinates of the effective primaries(including sRGB)  red, green, blue as columns.
    (2) explains the principle of the pseudoinverse for overdetermined systems of linear equations.
    (1) explains the application for the identification of camera primaries for given sensor sensitivities.
    Unfortunately, the whole concept will fail, if the camera sensor sensitivities (CMFs) are not
    linear combinations of the CIE CMFs x-bar, y-bar, z-bar. In this case, a camera does not have
    primaries, but the computational result can be used as an approximation.
    CMF = color matching function (CIE)
    I regret –it cannot be explained 'for the layman'.
    Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Maybe you are looking for