Subject:
|
Re: Color chart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 May 2000 22:06:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2522 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.faq, Cary Clark writes:
>
> I can explain this somewhat. I worked on Apple system software in graphics for
> many years.
cool!
> The Macintosh, which Suzanne uses, is set up to attempt to show each level of
> gray equi-distant from each other, as the eye sees it. This is done by applying
> a curve to the pixel output, which is the 1.8 gamma curve Suzanne mentioned.
> According to my Macintosh, the PC defaults to a 2.2 gamma, but I've seen PCs
> that do no gamma correction at all. I just went through my color calibration on
> Mac OS 9, and I had a host of incorrect settings. Now when I look at Suzanne's
> chart, it looks much better.
Actually, I have a dual monitor setup here. Running OS 9.0.4, I have two main
calibration settings saved. One for a PC view on my iMacSE screen (gamma 2.2)
and the other is set up for mirroring over to my ViewSonic PT775 (which has it's
manual calibration system disabled).
I try to keep things simple because I've got AGFA, Kodak, Apple ColorSync, and
ViewSonic color calibration systems in here. also that Adobe gamma control
panel, etc... makes a recipe for disaster. I usually load only the new Apple
control panel because it's simple and I spend most time in front of the iMac
just typing.
Virtual PC holds my settings from the Mac calibration. kinda good, kinda bad. We
have no PC machines in the house runing Windows. But I can have a look from my
local library or MIT.
> Suzanne, I don't know if you want to bother, but for the PC populace you may
> want to consider recalibrating with gamma turned off. I guess the extreme would
> be to provide a chart with no gamma, 1.8 Mac gamma and 2.2 PC gamma.
thanks. This is do-able. the PC populace is my target.
> Now that I'm writing this, I'm thinking that a little JavaScript might be able
> to select the appropriate gamma at runtime. I'll have to dig up my gamma code
> and see if I can throw something together.
I considered using JavaScript. I often gaze longingly down that route, but it's
kinda discouraged here. I think Todd puts JS somewhere in the realm of.. well,
suffice it to say I don't think he'd allow it on LUGNET. I've been making some
new JS toys that are only getting his sideways glances (so they're bound for
baseplate.com). btw, the Minifig Generator 2.0 will use no JS or Java.
Now I've forgotten what we were talking about in the first place...
Oh yeah. So, this quickie color table I made is good enough for me if it can
help two people understand that they're discussing the same color, say in a
piece trade or something.
Trying to make it chromically(?) accurate may be unnecessary until there are
many more colors. If anyone looks at the table and says, "hey, that Sweet-tart
purple looks wrong to me." then at least there was an understanding of what the
swatch was meant to represent. Thet's why I like the natural linear arrangement,
of the reds for instance. It narrows things down quickly.
In a situation like LDraw, where representations of "real" objects are designed
to be as correct as possible, I can wholeheartedly see the need for a common
standard. So, I'm not sure how much fiddling I'll continue to do. especialy if
there are photos too. the photos may even help me to find more representative
color swatches.
-Suz
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Color chart
|
| I can explain this somewhat. I worked on Apple system software in graphics for many years. The Macintosh, which Suzanne uses, is set up to attempt to show each level of gray equi-distant from each other, as the eye sees it. This is done by applying (...) (24 years ago, 29-May-00, to lugnet.faq)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
