Over bright gamma?

This is a bizzare one, and i'll start from the beginning to make everything clear as to what has happened and going on.
One of the macs at my work place seems to be what looks to me like the gamma or contrast has been turned up too much so that there is no distinction in shades of dark colours, and greys look white so editing photos and designing is being affected when going to print.
It all started back on their old G5 mac when the apple displays were swapped (same type, the ones with the clear plastic and touch sensitive buttons). She's obviously upgraded to the intel mac pro and copied all the settings across which has transfered this problem with it.
I booted up the old mac today, and as the desktop is loading I noticed a massive change in the brightnesses of the wallpaper as it finished loading (went from normal/light to a darker blue).
When I logged into the macs via VNC the bits that are meant to be grey are grey, and everything looks like the other mac pro we have, i.e perfect but still on the screen of the actual mac, those bits are white.
I've tried calibrating the screen, but I cannot seem to get what ever is causing this whiteness/lack of distinction to go away. I've even tried a PRAM/NVRAM reset (on the old mac to see if it would cure it there first before trying on the production mac).
Any ideas if there is something elsewhere that needs resetting or turning down?
Message was edited by: AndrewMurphy

Changing the Color under System Preferences -> Color -> Display Profile has no effect I assume since you tried Calibrate?
Try checking under System Preferences -> Universal Access -> Seeing -> Contrast slider under Display
If that doesn't work then try another monitor, if you haven't already, and see if it persists.
May have to go pull some plists if this doesn't fix it though.

Similar Messages

After Effects CS 5.5 renders brighter gamma than my CS3. Files gamma don't match

I just upgraded to After Effects CS 5.5 last week. I had a project come back that was originally done in CS3. All the renders were done as the animation codec with an alpha channel. When I open the CS3 project in CS5.5 and render out a composition it is brighter than all the original comps rendered out of CS3. I have tired the checking the legacy quicktime check box in project settings but that didn't change anything. I also have tried several color management settings. Does anyone has any ideas of things to try.
Thanks

Have you considered, that this may be related to the global Gamma change Apple introduced in OSX 10.6.7? It would be relevant for Quicktime, as QT is monitor profile aware. With regards to ProRes, that's its own story of madness for which Todd has some info on his blog. Maybe look into that as well. Concerning your effects I would look into whether hardware acceleration could be at play here, i.e. turn off OpenGL in the prefs, if enabled. Several filters do use this option and in light of the eternally lasting problems with this, it#s always a good idea to give it a look...
Mylenium

Brightness/Gamma problem

I've noticed that a movie in Quicktime 7 pro looks brighter than the same movie viewed inside Final Cut Pro and After Effects. Anyone know what this is?
G5 dual 2g Mac OS X (10.4.6)

The MPEG-4 exports should automatically adjust to the gamma settings of the viewing machine. This prevents a file created on a Mac from appearing too dark on a PC. Older codecs don't support auto gamma correction.
You may get a better answer in the Final Cut Discussion pages. I don't own FCP.

Brightness, Gamma, Blacklevel on 4444's from DaVinci?

Hi, Guys!
I graded a sequence in DaVinci Resolve 9. As a client-monitor I use a panasonic plasma connected to the BlackMagic DeckLink card in my MacPro.
I do know that it's not a calibrated monitor, but what I see is a relative problem rather than a absolute one.
I render the sequence in Resolve to a series of ProRes4444 files, export an XML and import the whole shabang into FCPX. I rendered at "Unscaled Full Range Data", because I don't need to be TV safe.
When I look at the footage in FCPX the blacks are at 0% on FCP's internal Waveform as opposed to below that and the whites are a good deal lower than 110% where they start to clip.
The images look flatter and less crisp than what I graded them to in resolve.
Does FCPX remap the black/white levels or do some gamma voodoo?
Remember I'm looking at the output of the two programs on the same monitor connected to the same I/O card, so even if the plasma is not a calibrated client-monitor at least it should look the same, no?
Help appreciated.
Director of Photography, Director, Editor
Vienna, Austria

Use of Compressor's gamma adjustment is (commonly enough) needed if your blacks are too pure for NTSC. That certainly seems to be the case with your material.
Personally, I would export out of After Effects to the Animation codec, then drop that file into Compressor for export directly to MPEG-2 and .ac3. Of course using the Gamma Correction filter - I'd start testing with a setting of 1.05 and move up if that's not enough.
And yes, NTSC televisions (and DVDs) are affected by what is called Setup - it means blacks are very different from the digital realm. (while the link pertains to digital video, the phenomenon still applies to you)

Over bright screen using bootcamp and Windows X

My 24" iMac works great with bootcamp, but the screen is so bright it's unusable. The bootcamp control panel has a very limited control range and doesn't make the screen even close to dim enough.
I use Shades applet with Leopard when on the Mac side, and it works great.
Is there anyone out there who can suggest a similar program for Windows, or another way to further dim the iMac screen so it's usable under Windows in Bootcamp?
Thanks!

I wish you had follow my suggestion and called Apple to get a replacement set of original system disc.
The reason is that disc you order from Apple has only Snow Leopard version 10.6.3 and your Mac may need a later version of Snow Leopard, like 10.6.4, .5, .6 or .7 and that disc will NOT install the OS on your system.
Along with that the original system disc set contain a second disc for the iLife applications, "i" Photo, Movie, DVD, Web and Garage Band.
Without that second disc you can not install those iLife Apps unless you buy them from the Mac App Store at about $19.99 for each or the set of them on DVD from someplace like Amazon or eBay.
And if you buy it from the Mac App Store you can only get "i" Photo, Movie and Garage Band as Apple has stopped supplying "i" DVD and Web with the iLife Apps.

Preview is broken and when exported in Nik Software plugin, it's black or over bright

I'm working on a project for a Sail championship (last month the J24 European Championship, while this week Interlaghi) and since I started the last one I've really great problems with preview and "exporting" in Nik Software, that I never had before.
This is workflow:
shot image in raw (Canon eos500d)
import image in Aperture3 (images are refered on external drive normally, but now for this project are refered on the desk, I've an 256[GB] SSD with 8[GB] of RAM)
edit the image with Aperture3 controls, if I'm not lucky leaving the full screen the preview (big) dissapear and broken (small)
if I'm lucky open the image in Nik Software (e.g. Dfine) and work on it, when finished if unlucky back to point 3
if not luck the image in Nik Software is Black
so regenerate preview, and similar action are taken (last night I've also rbuilt all archive, with cmd+alt click aperture icon)
if luck I can work and export
if not luck I must close Aperture and keep crossed fingers.
At the begining I thought it could be a problem of too many images in the same folder and aperture-project (1800), but this is not the first time I work with big volume (airplanes shooting in Axalp normally is 1200 shots in one day).
I thought even a speed problem on the archive (the externa HD is 5200rpm on FireWire).
So I decided to relocate raw files on the desk, as I said I've a 256[GB] SSD; but nothing change!
Maybe a problem on TIFF export??
Someone can tell me a solution? the only big change in my usual workflow is that now there is Analog Efex Pro (that I don't use).
extra: I'm using a MacBook Pro (after june 2009 version 5,5 )
Here I post some screenshots:

Update!!!
I just discovered, that the problem is generated by Aperture3 bug: when I go on some image it change setting of CURVE and/or LEVEL

Difference in video brightness/contrast across viewer applications

I am using FCP->Color>FCP roundtrip to grade Red footage. After I grade the clips in Color and send them back to FCP, I see a difference in brightness/contrast of the graded clips when playing in FCP. And when I export the final output to quicktime and play it in quicktime player, I see further difference in brightness and contrast. Essentially the clips appear darker when played in QT player. Now I am confused as to which application is showing the correct brightness/gamma level? Is there a way to make all the applications play the video at same/true brightness/gamma? Any insights would be highly appreciate. Thanks!
-Pranab

There is a distinction between PCIe-based GPUs and I/O cards that you have to be aware of. COLOR's user interface, render/scopes and output are split between the two. A graphics processor handles the user interface (PCIe is better, application won't run on on-board integrated or AGP), and actual grade values for judgement are based on a PCIe HD-SDI I/O card like AJA Kona3, or Blackmagic (Intensity?) which are NOT graphics cards, they are video interfaces.
For GPUs, if the application is running, that's a good indicator. However, preferred cards have been evolving over the past 5 years. My first system was configured with a Quadro 4500FX which was a total waste of money. I deliberately chose an ATI X1900XT for the next tower, which was a significant improvement. My third MacPro is running fine with the default ATI 2600HD, which is as plain vanilla as you can get. Some users report speed advantages with the newer 4870 series, but I fail to see significant differences -- COLOR in its current delivery will never deliver "real-time" preview playback on any card, and it still takes a very long time to render, in comparison with some other grade offerings. Fourth machine, I'm still deciding, but it would be great if Apple got the FX4000 thing happening, and I'll get to that.
Nvidia does suffer from some bit-depth processing issues in that it does not directly support 10-bit codecs, but can be switched into the more intensive "float" mode. It also has some other transient issues.
Looking outside Apple COLOR, consider that Blackmagic Resolve ("DaVinci") is predicated entirely on nVidia's CUDA-processing technology and is restricted to implementation on 2 or 3 very specific cards, as opposed to the FCP-centred, but ATI/AJA-leaning Apple solution, which, although somewhat restricted, is 90% more likely to run on almost anything PCIe that you can stick into a MacPro. However, the color science and cross-platform (AVID support, for example) that DaVinci offers makes it very tempting, and that's why I'm paying a lot more attention to nVidia these days.
If you are looking for HDSDI PCIe cards, then AJA, with IO, Kona3, and so on definitely has the edge and can extend capabilities up to and beyond 2K processing, but many users select other solutions that suit their individual needs -- not everyone delivers theatrical Digital Cinema or needs to.
jPo

AME makes all exported videos brighter

Hi, I'm trying to export a project from Premiere Pro CS6 to Adobe Media Encoder to render but I've noticed that all of my videos are coming out over bright, I can see the difference in the preview window in Media Encoder as the video is rendering, it's much much brighter than the original Premiere Pro preview.
I'm outputting to H264 Quicktime, I realise that there are gamma issues with watching videos in quicktime and this is not that, even in other players the video is far brighter than occurs with the gamma issue in quicktime.
Added: Just outputted it in mpg format and the brightness reflects the Premiere preview brightness is still being output above it's original brightness in Premiere. Also tried exporting in Sorensen 3 and got the same brightness issue, so it may just be something specific to .mov files....although I haven't ever noticed it before and I've rendered out many many videos with the same settings in the same way and they all came out fine.

yup, totally understand checking it on a calibrated tv, however this is something that is changing the brightness fundamentally somehow between Premiere and Media Encoder and before a couple of days ago I've never had an issue with it, all my exports were going over to Media Encoder with no differences between what I could see in Premiere and what was rendered out in Media Encoderl. Now, right in the preview in Media Encoder I'm seeing a massive difference from what it looks like in Premiere, everything comes out brighter and more washed out than I've ever experienced before.
.....I've just checked an older project from last week and done a test render to the usual h24 quicktime settings I use and it's come out looking the same as it does in premiere, so it would appear to be something in the specific project itself which is causing the brightness blowout.

Over-Saturation

I was told by a couple of pro photographers on a web site I frequent that my photos are generally over-saturated. I have PSE 10 and almost always make the following edits:
- using the Quick selection, do an Autofix, then increase the Shadows, Highlights, and Midtones to bring out more definition
- using Full, do an Auto Levels, sometimes do an Auto Color Correction (depending on how it looks), and finally do a bit of sharpening using the Unsharp Mask
Rarely do I specifically adjust (increase) the saturation. So my questions are:
1) I think I have a general idea of when photos are over-saturated, but what specifically do you look for to indicate that they are?
2) do any of the PSE edits I am doing above implicitly change the saturation? If so, how can I modify my edits so as not to over-saturate?
3) can you take a look at some of my photos and give me your opinion as to whether they are over-saturated? The first photo of the butterfly in the photostream was specifically adjusted for saturation, but most of the other ones were not.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98772145@N05/
Thanks.

I see the same thing if I edit the example fox image in the same ways as you've specified, although this particular image doesn't need much done to it, in my opinion, and so the oversaturation is less than some others.
I think you are on the right track saying out of the Quick Fix things, because these reduce the overall dynamic range more than a little and boost the saturation slightly so the net effect is an unnatural mismatch between the overall contrast and the saturation. Normally if you reduce contrast in a scene the colors are also muted but with your multiple iterations of fixes the opposite occurs.
The other comment is that the sharpness is being applied to things that don't deserve it, mainly noise, and the way you reduce this is to up the threshold a bit to avoid sharpening areas that don't have edges. I found that on the fox picture, a threshold around 15 seemed good, which sharpens the glint in the eyes and some of the fur that is in focus, but leaves the out-of-focus noisy areas alone.
You asked what you might do different, and I have two approaches to give, none of which use Quick or Auto fixes and actually take less steps. First is to use Levels and Shadows/Highlights which are both under Enhance / Adjust Lighting. The third option in this menu is Brightness/Contrast but the fox picture was almost ok so didn't really need any of that. Here are screen shots of the menu items and the adjustments I made to your photo using them:
First I used Levels to adjust the black point to 12 which was where the histogram ran out of values at the low end, and then boosted the overall brightness using the gamma slider to where it looked ok but not overly bright. In this example I used 1.20. With a different sort of picture, you might need to move the white-point down to where the histogram ran out of values on the bright end but this picture had pure white already in it, so that wasn't necessary. The Auto Levels command actually does the black and white point adjustments but it overdoes them a little so I like using the Levels black and white point sliders to be more precise:
Next I did like how you brought out a little more detail in the highlights, so used Shadows/Highlights to compress the light values slightly, and also used the Midtone Contrast to give the textures of the image a little more pop:
None of this increased the saturation appreciably nor compressed the dynamic range so much to make things seem unnatural.
I left your sharpening except using a threshold of 15 as I stated, above. This image was quite blurry so it probably needed more sharpening attention using different radii and perhaps the other sharpening tool, but I didn't want to spend time with that since the most obvious issue at hand was oversaturation.
The second technique, which is a bit more radical but more useful in my opinion, is to open the JPG in the Camera Raw plug-in despite not being a raw format file. This has the advantage of having all the toning sliders available at once without having to go though various menus and buttons to find each small set of adjustments and also just one Auto button to click, though usually I back off most of what the Auto decided for me but it's still something quick to try at the beginning. There is also better sharpening and noise reduction.
Ok, to open a non-raw file in the Camera Raw plug-in, you can use File / Open As... and after choosing the image, set the File Type to Camera Raw, then click Open:
Here is your original image opened in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) with all the toning adjustments at zero:
Below is how I adjusted the toning sliders. I had first clicked Auto and didn't like how it was too dark, so I only left the Blacks at +1 from that, and reset or readjusted everything else. The overall image seemed a little dark to me so I increased the Exposure by half-a-stop, but that washed out the highlights so I dialed them back by setting Highlights to -87, just so there was some detail in the chin fur and foreground rock. Finally I increased the Clarity, which inreases the contrast of the textures, and finally I added a tiny bit of Vibrance. If I had adjusted the blackopint down quite a bit, then that might have oversaturated everything, and I could have addressed that by merely setting the Vibrance or Saturation to a slightly negative value. I also like a little bit extra color in my processing, so a slight bit of added Vibrance seemed good to me. The Vibrance slider is different than Saturation in that it doesn't boost skin tones (reds/oranges/yellows) as much as the greens and blues, so it works to increase color in people pictures without overdoing their skin. I've put the original to the right on the same line so it's easier to compare:
Besides toning you can do detail adjustment, which involves sharpening and noise-reduction. Here is the face portion of the originally processed image at 100% if you click on it. The first thing you'll notice is that all the grainy noise is sharpened even in areas that are out of focus or blurred due to the left-right camera motion, and the other thing to notice is the green and mostly reddish-purple splotches of color noise that weren't quite all removed in camera:
Here are the Sharpness and Noise-Reduction settings I settled on after a few minutes:
The main thing to notice is that the only sharpened parts are the ones that have relatively sharp details, the glint in the eyes and the fur on their side of the eyes and a bit of the whiskers. The rest is mostly out of focus. For a better shot, without the camera motion, the sharpening settings might have been entirely different. The way I accomplished only sharpening the edges that where relatively sharp already and ignoring the noise and other out-of-focus areas was with the Sharpen Masking setting, which is 77 in this case. This is somewhat similar to the threshold setting of the sharpening in the regular Unsharp Mask in PSE, but it has a way to set it visually, by holding down the Alt key while sliding the Masking slider back and forth until only the bolder edges are shown:
I see in this screenshot that I had the Detail slider set to 5, which was probably better than the 25 I used in the screenshot, above. The other thing to notice is the Luminance and Color sliders in the Noise Reduction area are set to reduce the tiny specs of noise and the green/purple splotches.
One thing I need to mention about using Camera Raw is that I think in PSE10 the highest version you can update to may be ACR 6.7 which won't have the same set of toning sliders as in my example--I hacked a version of the 7.1 beta plug-in to use with it to get the new sliders, but normally you would have those available in PSE10 I don't think. You would need to use PSE11 or better yet, wait for PSE12 which comes out in another week or two.
This new method of toning and detail adjustment works ok with images one-by-one via File / Open, but it isn't that efficient ot use for many images. The best thing for that that isn't expensive Photoshop, would be to get Lightroom, which has these same adjustments but also optimized to work with dozens, hundreds, or more images from one photoshoot. The other benefit to Lightroom is that you can use a wide array of filters and brushes that are limited in the Elements-hosted version of the Camera Raw plug-in.
Remember when I said I thought the overall fox picture was too dark, well what is really wrong is the fox is too dark and I could care less about the rocks and other non-important background items. Here is a version of the same fox picture using Lightroom's radial filter to darken the surroundings so the fox is more prominent. The one without the radial filter darkening is at the right:
Lightroom is currently on sale for $129.99 and upgrades are $79.99 with a 30-day trial version available for download if you want to try it:
http://www.adobe.com/lightroom/

What's the Story with Brightness using AutoTone

AutoTone brightness levels have been pretty whacked out on the PC version for a long time now. Are you guy mixing up native gammas between OS's or something. I mean it's pretty much consistently too bright on the PC version by like about +25. It's the consistency of the overly bright on the PC version by +25 that makes me think its something you guys can fix (take a look at). Of course some kid or really old guy will now respond with some (subjective/relativity, is your monitor calibrated stuff he learned this year on the internet nonsense) but that's par for the course I guess. Thanks guys for the the terrific work your doing.

Yea ssprengel, that's exactly what I've been doing (not using it much though any more). Wish we could at least edit the code in the preset where all it would do is shadow, highlight recovery and auto contrast. Those portions of AutoTone seem to work very well. Something maybe like;
settings = {
   AutoBrightness = false,
   AutoContrast = true,
   AutoExposure = false,
   AutoShadows = true,
   AutoHighlightRecovery = true,**
   AutoFillLight = false,**
   AutoTone = false,
**These are the one that do not exist and I wish they did.
By the way the "Fill Light" portion of AutoTone is also a disaster.

CS4 - Is there a way to adjust gamma for second monitor or send to overlay?

One thing that is evident when I edit in Premiere CS4 using the AVCHD 1080i 60 template is that the preview in the second monitor, which in my case is my TV set connected using a DVI to HDMI cable, is that the output is too dark compared to what it should be. Darker areas of the frame sometimes even get crushed into black when the same footage, when played directly from the camcorder, or even burned to blu-ray and played, is noticeably brighter and at the right black levels.
This doesn't happen when editing in Vegas Pro 8, or when the untouched footage is played through other video player, including Windows 7 Media Center.
A workaround for this problem can be to go to the graphics card control panel, in my case ATI Catalyst, and adjust the gamma for the second monitor, with the problem being that when you're done editing in Premiere you have to go back to the normal gamma. At one point I had setup two profiles in Catalyst with shortcuts and it worked well, but one day Catalyst simply lost the profiles and noticing how buggy it was I wasn't going to keep creating profiles so that Catalyst would delete them.
So my question is, since it's not in the preferences, is there some settings file or registry address that I can tweak to make Premiere display a brighter gamma of my choice?
And this may be a dead end, but is there a way to send the output of the second monitor to the overlay so that it can take advantage of the graphic's card video capabilities and display video smoothly? It's nice to have a preview of the timeline, but it's rather annoying if I have to go to the Catalyst control panel and adjust gamma before editing and after editing and that motion is jerky and not interlaced when I'm editing interlaced content.

You need the VESA mount option. That way your minimum angle would be completely vertical and you could open it to a negative 10 degrees.
Hope this helps.
Pete
I am not an HP employee, But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
TouchSmart IQ526t CTO Intel 2.26 Ghz 4 gig ram 750 gig HDD Vista Premium 64 bit

Hi I'm back -- lines shake when panning over photo of sheet music

Hi everyone,
I'm Ken Burns-ing diagonally over a photo of sheet music. The lines shake and quake and look terrible. Anyone encountered this?
Also, for those of you who don't read my other thread, thanks for your posts re: the levels issue. Sorry, I've been off the board for a few weeks due to personal emergencies and illness and am just getting back to the project tonight. Just didn't want you guys to think i was blowing off your responses.
EG =)

David and Bryan have covered most of the issues. This just puts the general solutions in some sort of order ...
The flickering is a result of very thin (often horizontal) elements that exist on one scanline. As the alternate fields play the one element is essentially being turned on/off. The basic strategy is to get the element to exist over two scanlines so it is refreshed every time the field plays.
Things to try (In increasing order of image degradation)
- (in FCP) field dominance (more rightly termed order) > none
- (in FCP or Photoshop) reduce whites by 10% (and the blacks if nec) - reduces overly bright areas and reduces overall contrast
-(in FCP) flicker filter - minimum
- (in Photoshop) motion blur>vertical> .2 - .5 pixel - blurs vertically only
- (In FCP or Photoshop) Gaussian blur> up to .2 - .5 pixel -blurs both horizontally as well as vertically
- (in FCP or Photoshop) deinterlace - throws away half the image and is generally not appropriate on scanned images
Remember: Make sure you are viewing your work in the appropriate external NTSC/PAL monitor. The computer monitor only shows you a proxy image.
good luck.
x

How can I manually change contrast/brightness/colors?

I want to simply use some slider to adjust the contrast, brightness, gamma or color balance in my MacBook Pro, but for some reason I'm unable to find it. All I can find is the calibration process, but when I calibrate it "correctly", the screen is a bit too dark so I just want to adjust the brightness/gamma manually AFTER the calibration. How? Where? Please don't tell me that it's one of the "Apple doesn't allow me to do this" things ;-)

VarHyid,
The only way I know how is though System Preferences > Displays
For Brightness there is a slider in System Preferences > Displays > Display ( Tab )
For Gamma and Contrast you have to use the Display Calibrator Assistant found in System Preferences > Displays > Color ( Tab ) > Calibrate...
Although if you use Expert Mode there are more options.
You can fine tune the Color Profile settings if you use Expert Mode. Then you just go through the prompts and adjust as you would like it.
Hope that helps,
Weston
Support Articles,
If your Display doesn't look right: https://help.apple.com/machelp/mac/10.10/index.html?localePath=en.lproj#/mchlp29 06
Calibrate Your Display: https://help.apple.com/machelp/mac/10.10/index.html?localePath=en.lproj#/mchlp11 09

Screen dimming when moving hand over left speaker??

Hi all
Curious one, I got up early, dragged out the laptop to have a look on web, I turned the brightness down to one notch (F1) I found that if I put my left hand 1 inch above the left speaker (yea that's right not touching anything) and move my hand left and right, then screen goes dimmer then brighter then dimmer and so on?
Any thoughts... got me stumped?
MBP 2GB, 1.83 version 10.4.10
Cheers ears
Az

Well... I do understand why they did it.
Granted, the sensors should not be in the top case; bad design. I've never triggered the dim while typing, but I do get fluctuations depending on what's on the screen itself whenever I work in a dark room. I'll open a browser, for example, and my whole screen will go from my dark background picture to an empty white browser window. The flood of backlighting is enough to trigger the sensors.
If the sensors were better-placed, this would be a great feature as overly bright screens in a dim room cause eye strain and are an unnecessary battery drain. Too bad the sensors don't give the OS reliable info.
Ciao for now, Joel

Make screen (physically) brighter

hi, i have noticed that my toshiba satellite (2007) screen is very dim compared to say an apple compouter or macbook.. i have already increased brightness all the way through the settings, and increased brightness & gamma through the chip settings, but it's still maybe only half as bright as other laptops i see
is there any way to physically increase brightness, through the power/hardware? for example, switching the resistor.. or some kind of power booster for the particular circuit that controls the screen's brightness?
thanks!

Nope. Not without costing more than a replacement laptop would cost.
If you don't post your COMPLETE model number it's very difficult to assist you. Please try to post in complete sentences with punctuation, capitals, and correct spelling. Toshiba does NOT provide any direct support in these forums. All support is User to User in their spare time.

Over bright gamma?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for