AWARE [SYSTEMS] Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer
AWare Systems, Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer, Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
December 2006

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2006.12.05 15:52 "Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.05 17:18 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.12.05 17:34 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.05 17:45 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.12.05 18:44 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.05 22:10 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Frank Warmerdam
2006.12.05 20:37 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.05 21:16 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Edward Lam
2006.12.05 21:30 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.05 22:28 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Edward Lam
2006.12.05 22:41 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Jean-yves Le Ridant
2006.12.05 23:13 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.12.05 23:29 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Phillip Crews
2006.12.06 02:05 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Graeme Gill
2006.12.05 22:56 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Glenn Widener
2006.12.05 23:26 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Toby Thain
2006.12.06 01:58 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Graeme Gill
2006.12.06 04:45 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Edward Lam
2006.12.06 20:56 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.06 22:19 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Graeme Gill
2006.12.06 23:30 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.07 01:28 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Graeme Gill
2006.12.07 07:45 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.06 20:56 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Joris Van Damme
2006.12.06 21:57 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Graeme Gill

2006.12.06 01:58 "Re: Grayscale, or is it?", by Graeme Gill

Glenn Widener wrote:

> We (SwiftView) used to obey the spec regarding a default gamma of 2.2.  But we 
> found no one else that does, so we can't either, and we changed the default to a 
> straight linear device RGB.  "No one else" includes at least.Microsoft Office 
> Document Imaging and Paint Shop Pro 6.

There seems to be lots of confusion involving the words "linear" and "gamma"
in these discussions.
To me, the sections of the spec. that Joris quoted means that grey should
not be gamma encoded (ie. it can't be fed straight into a CRT monochrome
display), but has to be linear light encoded, in contrast to the RGB data
which does have a default gamma of 2.2

You're paragraph above seems very confusing to me. You're saying you
obeyed the spec. default gamma of 2.2, except that from what Joris
quoted, there is no default gamma of 2.2 for grey in the spec.!

Then you say you switched to straight linear, but then you say
you switched to device RGB - which contradict each other.
"straight linear" I interpret to mean "linear light", ie. gamma = 1.
Typical "device RGB" is sRGB like, and is not linear, it has
a gamma somewhere around 2.2, which is what Microsoft Office
etc. use.

Either we're interpreting "straight", "linear" and "gamma" differently,
or perhaps you are confusing the processing applied, with the state
of encoding ?

> Linear means literally read, write and send the values to your display unchanged 
> - "linear device values".  If you don't know what the correction is, or haven't 
> been told, don't do any.

It's very confusing to to talk about processing steps. Processing
steps get inverted when you change the direction you're going,
or change the destination encoding you are transforming to,
while an encoding state is a constant frame of reference, from
which you can figure out what processing steps to use.

So while you might use "linear processing" to transport gamma 2.2
encoded grey value to a device that expect gamma 2.2 encoded
grey values, it doesn't make the the encoding "linear".

> The standard conversion from RGB to gray, documented in the textbooks, is grey 
> level =  .33R+.5G+.17B.  So a unitary conversion back to RGB is fine.  

And of course this equation is acknowledged to be wrong - you can't
combine gamma encoded values like this to give a correct greyscale.
To do it properly, you have to turn the values into linear light
encoding, then weighted sum them, and perhaps re-encode with
gamma again. The NTSC system adopted the above simply for expedience -
it's tricky to decode into linear light and back again using vacuum
tubes - so they compromised on the monochrome reproduction.

If you have a full characterization of your grey space (say an ICC profile
that gives a mapping from device space to CIE values), then you
can use (and may or may not want to use) other than a unitary
conversion to a 3 color space. If the grey process gave (for instance)
a sepia response, then for proofing you may want to reproduce the sepia tones
in RGB. Of course I agree that most of the time something simpler is
expected, so converting to the correct gamma encoding and then duplicating
is channel is the usual process.

Graeme Gill.