ITU-R BT.1886 Gamma formula?
- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by Anonymous.
December 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm #587AnonymousInactive
Should we be transitioning over to the ITU-R BT.1886 gamma formula when possible in calibrations, when the customer has good light control? Right now I use power function.
December 21, 2011 at 6:59 pm #2440
short answer is yes.December 21, 2011 at 7:07 pm #2441AnonymousInactive
Thanks Gregg!December 21, 2011 at 7:17 pm #2442
the more precise answer is 2.40 gamma.
This would be a good discussion to have over beers (or diet cokes).
Merry Christmas!!November 18, 2013 at 8:30 pm #2984AnonymousInactive
Can someone help me understand why the gamma formula impacts the saturation sweeps.. I’m not clearly seeing the relationship. I have just discovered that if I start with a WF that was saved with a power formula and I do a sat sweep, it doesn’t do a 0 read (which is correct). However, if I change the gamma formula to 1886, then it changes the layout and takes the 100/0. Now the issue I noticed is that if I try to switch back to the power formula, it still reads 100/0. I was doing this with all older workflows and the THX complete as a test. It seems that if it was initially created with power, it works until the formula is changed. Then, it takes a restart of CalMAN to get back to not reading 0.
What has me curious is that if a display can go lower than a meter can read (thinking of a full array backlight and a meter that can’t read that low), then it seems that the 0 will be blown and thus the math is compromised. Is this even remotely correct?November 21, 2013 at 7:21 pm #2986
Think of the canvas as a light source that changes the brightness of the paint. As the canvas becomes brighter, the paint will be less saturated but of a higher luminance.
yes on IDing potential problems trying to measure 0 % stimulus. Upgrade your gear, or more realistically stick to gamma of 2.3 ish.November 21, 2013 at 8:35 pm #2987AnonymousInactive
What I was getting to, in a round about way -My question seems to evolve with discussion, is that if one goes from 1886 to power, then it seems that also requires a change in the gamma points to get it to NOT read 0 in a saturation sweep (also a restart). At least that is how the software is behaving. Also, if I understood a response I received elsewhere, 0 is not required if using power; however, I am wondering what it is doing when it is set to power and the scale is set to 11pt. Is it using the 0 measurement or not. It seems like from the response I received, but I need to follow-up -If a 0 is specified, then it won’t read 0 or use it (not sure on this exactly).
But, the question I haven’t answered in my mind is what is happening if I leave 0 measured and use only a 10pt. This can happen because of the new default. So, I was trying to understand the components needed to create the sweep, and see if I can determine what is happening, based on the settings I change. IN the simulation mode, I think it is nearly impossible, since it may not be pulling any data and just generating random example data. so, the gist is, if I want to change the workflow from 1886 to power, what changes to the various settings need to be changed in CalMAN? Power, gamma pts, and 0 read, or will it correct itself if I just change to power, and don’t change anything else…??
Maybe this is best addressed on SpectraCal Forum, but sometimes I get some answers that leave me with just as many questions, so I thought I would try here to see if I can get a little insight.
So, thanks to all for help… It is invaluable to have so many knowledgeable resources.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.