>>First I would like to thank mr. Tobie for the clear answer to my last question. Glad it proved clear. They often seem clear to me at my end, but don't seem that way at all on the other end... >>Another question I have is why the spyder 4 software does not allow a calibration to an 'sRGB gamma' (or does the elite version allow this?)? I understand that the gamma of sRGB is on average close to 2.2, but only on average. For lower pixel values it becomes linear and higher pixel values the gamma is closer to 2.3 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB). Is there maybe a technical limitation in the profile parameters? Pro only has a few basic gamma settings. Elite allows you to import or create any tone response curve you want; per channel. From your questions, it sounds like you really should upgrade. But have you actually seen the plot of sRGB's vanity curve versus gamma 2.2? If the lead in your pencil is not really sharp when you plot them both, they are simply the same line. There is no real world value of one over the other. Not anywhere close to gamma 2.3; gamma 2.21 perhaps... though the difference lowers the gamma in one area, infinitesimally, and raises it in another. C. David Tobie Global Product Technology Manager Imaging Color Solutions Datacolor inc. cdtobie@... www.datacolor.com On Dec 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, "gerard_culemborg" <yahoo@...> wrote: > First I would like to thank mr. Tobie for the clear answer to my last question. > > Another question I have is why the spyder 4 software does not allow a calibration to an 'sRGB gamma' (or does the elite version allow this?)? I understand that the gamma of sRGB is on average close to 2.2, but only on average. For lower pixel values it becomes linear and higher pixel values the gamma is closer to 2.3 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB). Is there maybe a technical limitation in the profile parameters?
Message
Re: [datacolor_group] Calibrate to sRGB
2012-12-10 by CDTobie