Datacolor User to User Support Group.

>>In any case, I always felt that
shadows are blocked in 2.2 and that everything is too light in 1.8, so
I was hoping L-star would help with that.

Thats sounds about right...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

-----Original Message-----
From: marko.mili <marko.mili@...>
To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 6:01 pm
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [colorvision_group] Re: Initial info on the new 
Spyder3 line of prod






--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "J Bryan Kramer"
<codeburner@...> wrote:
>
> From reading thru those links it seems that there is no advantage to
using
> L-star unless you are working in 8 bits. And working in 8 bits would
seem to
> be an odd plan for someone who is worried about color space issues and
> reading this list.
>
> BK

My understanding of color theory and implementation of color
management is admittedly limited, but I don't think that statement is
entirely true. I realize that in 16 bits quantization errors are not
really an issue for any commonly used color space, but display on my
screen definitely changes when I use gamma 1.8 vs gamma 2.2, even when
looking at color managed images in Photoshop or Lightroom. It
certainly changes non-color managed portions of the display, so
perhaps my perception of what is light and dark inside a color managed
application is affected by that. In any case, I always felt that
shadows are blocked in 2.2 and that everything is too light in 1.8, so
I was hoping L-star would help with that.





Yahoo! Groups Links







________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
http://mail.aol.com