 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> ____________________________________________________________________
> | |
> | What You See Is What I See (WYSIWIS) |
> | |
> | This image was designed in sRGB color space. To properly view this |
> | image the monitor or the viewing software must be set to sRGB mode |
> | and the monitor's black level must be properly adjusted. Otherwise |
> | the colors and the balance of light and dark will be wrong. |
> | __________________________________________________________________ |
> | sRGB is a standard promoted by Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft. |
> | gamma=2.2, primaries=HDTV, white point=6500K |
> |____________________________________________________________________|
>
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!
Talk about "stifling innovation!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> I just wanted to point out that you don't go to an art gallery
> wearing sunglasses and then complain to the artist: "It's too dark!" :)
Most of MS'es innovations are more like, requiring everyone to carry their
own MFlashLite(TM) v. 2.11, instead of the sun, and you cannot see the
paintings with MFlashLite(TM) v.2.10, and it first automatically displays
its logo and then projects slides of ads for companies that gave MS $$ for
30 seconds before operating as a normal light.
Can the pov community buck this trend??
Opinions not those of my employer in any way.........
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Can the pov community buck this trend??
>
"buck" the trend? Only MICROSOFT can do that... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> (http://hammer.prohosting.com/~kkivisal/adjust.gif)
Mind if I snatch this for my site?
--
___ _______________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricy net> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> >
> > > sRGB gamma=2.2, primaries=HDTV, white point=6500K
> >
> > Talk about "stifling innovation!"
>
> Don't turn blue yet. This is supposed to be the average
> internet (PC) monitor. The white point and primaries
> don't matter as much as the gamma and correctly adjusted monitor
> (http://hammer.prohosting.com/~kkivisal/adjust.gif)
>
> I just wanted to point out that you don't go to an art gallery
> wearing sunglasses and then complain to the artist: "It's too dark!" :)
Right, which is why you should set your gamma to 1.8. Oh sure, there are
people out there who do graphic work with things that aren't Macs, but
they don't count. ;)
Greg has a point, though.. requiring everyone on the world to adhere to
a specific set of monitor settings when there was no computing-wide
standard to begin with is a bit, hmm.. arrogant? Monolithic? (Especially
when PC graphics are so nasty anyway.) Apple had an easier and more
compatible idea in ColorSync; unfortunately, it didn't catch on nearly
as well as they'd hoped.
--
Xplo Eristotle
http://start.at/xplosion/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote in message <39046998.F184D80A@kivisalo.net>...
>"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>> Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>>
>> > sRGB gamma=2.2, primaries=HDTV, white point=6500K
>>
>> Talk about "stifling innovation!"
>
>
>Don't turn blue yet. This is supposed to be the average
>internet (PC) monitor.
How.....interesting. The monitor for my computer has a gamma of either 1.7
(under windows) or 2.6 (DOS, Linux, etc.). Neither of these is particularly
close to 2.2.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:49:34 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>How.....interesting. The monitor for my computer has a gamma of either 1.7
>(under windows) or 2.6 (DOS, Linux, etc.). Neither of these is particularly
>close to 2.2.
Does it have a refresh rate indicator? Gamma varies a lot with screen
resolution and refresh rate.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:49:34 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
><mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>
>>How.....interesting. The monitor for my computer has a gamma of either
1.7
>>(under windows) or 2.6 (DOS, Linux, etc.). Neither of these is
particularly
>>close to 2.2.
>
>Does it have a refresh rate indicator? Gamma varies a lot with screen
>resolution and refresh rate.
The refresh rate is the same in all situations. The reason for the
difference is that the video driver under Windows is providing a gamma
correction of 1.12 (or so it says).
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
