Subject:
|
Re: Gamma correction (was Re: color, contrast and brightness problems - any idea?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 2004 19:11:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2638 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
So why does my monitor come in at about 1.7 on the first chart, and 2.4 on
the second? I’ll accept that the second makes it far easier to find the best
match, but I won’t accept that my estimate is off by 0.7 on the first chart.
There’s absolutely no way my monitor is over 2 on that chart, and 1.7 really
looks like the best match.
--Travis Cobbs
|
Well, I found both of those charts off of google, so i don’t know which one is
more accurate. At the risk of confusing things even more, I found another page
with a similar test:
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart. I believe this
one is accurate, since he give the formula used for calculating the solid areas.
It’s also important to have the monitor’s contrast and brightness set correctly.
The contrast control should be set to maximum; the brightness control should be
set so that a test image such as
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/gamma/black-level.gif the letter
should be visible, but just barely.
Andy
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
