(With some changes for a less accurate, but more visually pleasing/exciting replication of brightness levels ?)
Now, with many modern, digital screens (LCD, LED, e-ink?), as far as I've understood the electro-optical hardware response is actually linear, so the hardware actually has to do a non-linear conversion ?
I'm still somewhat confused about this, as I expected to have to do gamma correction when making a gradient recently, but in the end it looked like I didn't have to (or maybe it's because I didn't do it properly : didn't do it two-way?).
Note that the blog author might be confused there too, as just after he says :
> With these conversions in place, dithering produces (more) accurate results:
– you can clearly see that the new dithered gradient doesn't correspond to the undithered one ! (Both undithered gradients seem to be the same.)
sRGB gamma is often approximated to 2.2 [1], but the actual function has a linear section near 0, and a non-linear section with gamma of 2.4, possibly to avoid numerical difficulties near 0.
The document you cite claims that CRT gamma is typically between 2.35 and 2.55.
Human eye gamma can probably be approximated with cieLAB, that is designed to be a perceptually uniform colorspace, which seemingly has a gamma of 3 [2], although it also has a linear section, so maybe slightly lower overall gamma. ciaLAB is not state of the art though in perceptually uniform colorspaces.
What I don't like about this whole CRT/gamma topic:
1. It brings in perceptually uniform colorspaces to the discussion, while it's completely unnecessary. Perceptually uniform colorspaces are mostly unsuitable for arithmetic on colors like any other non-linear colorspace.
2. While the sRGB colorspace and a colorspace defined by a CRT monitor's transfer function are closer to perceptually uniform than a linear colorspace, they are still pretty damn far from it. sRGB still does a decent job to prevent banding in dark areas.
3. The sRGB colorspace is not identical to a colorspace defined by a CRT monitor's transfer function.
4. "gamma" is a crude approximation for transfer functions, assuming they follow a power function on all of their domain.
5. This whole thing about CRTs and gamma doesn't matter if you just want to understand that if you want to do arithmetic on color components, then you most probably want it represented in a linear colorspace (didn't even talk about it yet), and most color values you encounter is actually encoded in sRGB, so you want to convert that to linear first, then convert the result back, depending on what your output requires. This is the most widespread bug in computer color and you don't need the history of CRTs to do that, and in fact this has nothing to do with perceptually uniform colorspaces.
> ciaLAB is not state of the art though in perceptually uniform colorspaces.
Which are state of the art ?
> 1. It brings in perceptually uniform colorspaces to the discussion, while it's completely unnecessary. Perceptually uniform colorspaces are mostly unsuitable for arithmetic on colors like any other non-linear colorspace.
I don't get what you mean, linearity (dL'star') being defined wrt perceptual uniformity, isn't CIELAB 76 linear by definition (to an approximation) ?? And color arithmetic pretty much by definition implies dealing with distances and angles in a perceptually uniform color space, doesn't it ??
(I would really like to know, since it actually is the very topic of 'practical work' that we have to do for mid-January. We were told to do the transformations to CIELAB 76 and, after the modifications, back to sRGB, using the D65 illuminant.)
Otherwise, I didn't mention the finer details about CRT transfer functions because it didn't seem to be relevant enough.
> This is the most widespread bug in computer color and you don't need the history of CRTs to do that, and in fact this has nothing to do with perceptually uniform colorspaces.
Yeah, I know, and while just doing this kind of transformation might be just good enough for the most common color arithmetic, is it really good enough for all use cases ?
To take an example from our practical work, seeing this kind of effect :
You know what, I think I'm going to try and do this practical work in two versions, one using just linear sRGB (and back). I'll see if I get noticeable differences. But that will have to wait a week or so, I'm too busy searching for internships right now (and have already spent too much time in this discussion...)
> I don't get what you mean, linearity (dL'star') being defined wrt perceptual uniformity, isn't CIELAB 76 linear by definition (to an approximation) ?? And color arithmetic pretty much by definition implies dealing with distances and angles in a perceptually uniform color space, doesn't it ??
No. Linearity is about physical light intensities relating to perceived color. Imagine having two light sources on the same spot that you can turn on or off separately. If you turn the first one on you perceive a certain color, if you turn the other on you perceive an other color and if you turn both on you perceive a third one. It turns out the perceivable colors (under normal viewing conditions) are representable in a three dimensional vector-space (for most people) so that the first two colors add up to the third color for every possible two light sources. Such a linear colorspace is XYZ for example [1].
This has nothing to do with perceptual uniformity. Perceptual uniformity is about the capability of distinguishing near colors. This defines a distance between colors, and there are three dimensional colorspace representations where the Euclidean distance approximate this perceptual distance well. cieLAB is such a colorspace, but AFAIK there are better state of the art colorspaces for the same purpose. I'm not very well versed in this, I learned from them from this video [2].
edit: gimp 2.10 now defaults to use a linear colorspace (not perceptually uniform!) for most if not all of its functionalities. This affects alpha-blending layers, the paintbrush, resizing, blur, and pretty much everything that involves adding/averaging colors. There is still a "legacy" option on these tools to turn back to the probably wrong sRGB methods, probably for compatibility with old gimp files. There is a dramatic difference when you use a soft green brush on a red background for example, it's worth to try out.
Ok, my bad, I should have re-read our lesson more carefully : we're actually supposed to do sRGB => XYZ > CIELAB (and later back).
And it looks like that you can either have an Euclidean vector (linear) space (linear sRGB, XYZ), or a perceptually uniform one (CIELAB), but not both !?
(I guess that I should have figured that out myself, sigh… this is why it isn't CIELAB that is used for monitor calibration, but CIELU'V' ?
EDIT : Nope :
"[CIELUV is] a simple-to-compute transformation of the 1931 CIE XYZ color space, but which attempted perceptual uniformity. It is extensively used for applications such as computer graphics which deal with colored lights. Although additive mixtures of different colored lights will fall on a line in CIELUV's uniform chromaticity diagram (dubbed the CIE 1976 UCS), such additive mixtures will not, contrary to popular belief, fall along a line in the CIELUV color space unless the mixtures are constant in lightness. ")
So you have to pick the best color space for the job, in the case of doing color averages that would be one of the linear ones (linear sRGB, XYZ), while if you are trying to design a perceptually uniform gradient for data visualization, you would better pick a perceptually uniform space (CIELAB, CIELUV) ?
See the recent Oklab post[0] for guidance on choosing a perceptually uniform color space for gradients. It's better than CIELab and CIELuv, both of which I would consider inferior to newer alternatives. In particular CIELab has particularly bad hue shifts in the blue range.
I'm also working on a blog post on this topic (there's an issue open in the repo for my blog, for the curious).
> I expected to have to do gamma correction when making a gradient recently, but in the end it looked like I didn't have to
If you don't explicitly specify the color space you're working in, then you're using some implicitly defined color space in which case you basically need to know what that is (at least roughly).
So traditionally in Windows, way back, when you created a bitmap, wrote some data to it and then drew it, there was no explicit mention of a color space. Instead it was implicit, and it was de-facto non-linear.
These days you can specify[1][2] the color space you're working in, and Windows will then transform the colors into the specified device color space. So then you can specify if you want to work in linear RGB space or say non-linear sRGB.
Unity has something similar[3], which affects how you write shaders, how your textures should be saved etc.
Yes, and in almost all of these discussions, the implicit color space is (non-linear) sRGB. (IIRC Macs might have used a different default color space one-two decades ago ?)
Also, I'm on Linux, and doing picture manipulation with Octave, but thank you for the links anyway !
Yeah I was just using Windows because that's what I was familiar with. I guess on Linux is can vary a lot more on the setup.
So yeah for Octave you need to know what Octave does with the data afterwards. If it's saving a matrix to a PNG say, it could assume the matrix is linear and convert to sRGB which would be a good choice if it also supported say OpenEXR files. However it could also just take the values raw, assuming you'd convert the data to sRGB before saving. Or even allow you to specify the color space in the iCCP chunk, which would give you more power.
Again, what it actually does is something that needs to be looked up.
Yeah, since we're learning, we're not doing anything fancy on that side (at least yet), so (so far) working with sRGB bmp/png/jpg input and sRGB bmp output.
As far as I've understood, CRT monitor gamma has basically evolved to become the inverse of human eye gamma :
http://poynton.ca/PDFs/Rehabilitation_of_gamma.pdf
(With some changes for a less accurate, but more visually pleasing/exciting replication of brightness levels ?)
Now, with many modern, digital screens (LCD, LED, e-ink?), as far as I've understood the electro-optical hardware response is actually linear, so the hardware actually has to do a non-linear conversion ?
I'm still somewhat confused about this, as I expected to have to do gamma correction when making a gradient recently, but in the end it looked like I didn't have to (or maybe it's because I didn't do it properly : didn't do it two-way?).
Note that the blog author might be confused there too, as just after he says :
> With these conversions in place, dithering produces (more) accurate results:
– you can clearly see that the new dithered gradient doesn't correspond to the undithered one ! (Both undithered gradients seem to be the same.)