Am 29.08.2012 16:44, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 29-8-2012 13:33, Ive wrote:
> I suppose one should be able to compare to see the differences. Could
> you show a smaller image with both techniques side by side? Would that
> be meaningful?
>

The image named "ymo - (Adobe RGB)" is the image where all colors are 
defined within the Adobe RGB primaries and after rendering the image is 
converted to linear sRGB (aka scRGB).
The one named "ymo - (sRGB)" uses already from Adobe RGB to sRGB 
converted color definitions and no more color transformation on the 
rendered output.
Both images did use linear gamma for color definitions and rendering, 
output was 16bit IEEE floating point (using OpenEXR) and the final step 
for both was reducing the bit-depth to 8bit/channel and applying the 
sRGB transfer function.

To actually judge the difference it would be best to store them local 
and use some image viewer that allows for browsing and setting a pitch 
black background - I think.

I'm not saying that one or the other does look better (this kind of 
scene makes it very hard to judge anyway) but it is interesting that 
there *is* a difference.
My main goal was to render something for my own use and here it *does* 
look much better - sadly I can share this only with people with a 
similar high-end monitor but those will get cheaper and more common over 
the years.
And I should also mention that using Adobe RGB as workspace for CGI 
images IMO makes only sense when both monitor and graphics card do 
support 10bit/channel as within the usual 8bit/channel color banding 
becomes very prominent - the back-draw of the wider gamut. Not to 
mention the need for appropriate software that does indeed support all 
those features.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ymo crop2 (adobe rgb).png' (130 KB) Download 'ymo crop2 (srgb).png' (144 KB)

Preview of image 'ymo crop2 (adobe rgb).png'

Preview of image 'ymo crop2 (srgb).png'