So to my current understanding, intentionally crushing the monitoring of the blacks with 2.35 is a reaction to the poor viewing conditions, and often quality, of consumer displays, and therefore I'm not that convinced it is actually good practice...?
I guess there's 'good practice' and 'standard practice'.
If you want to be EBU compliant that's the condition for monitor calibration (new info to me, thanks for pointing it out)... It does result in negating variables between different rooms by calibrating in a black box - making it a 'standard'.
- patrick
- -
Patrick inhofer
Colorist / Finisher / Owner, Fini.tv
Patrick inhofer
Colorist / Finisher / Owner, Fini.tv
Trainer, Tao Of Color.com
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:59 PM, <fabricealtman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi list,
digging up an all thread...
This EBU paper is referenced for setting up rec.709 monitor gamma at 2.35.
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3320.pdf
But the paper stipulates the conditions of the EOTF gamma measurement as (Chapter 5.4 - notes) :
The measurement is made in a completely darkened room, and the display must be
correctly set up using the PLUGE signal under those conditions. The measurement
conditions are thus different from normal operational conditions.
So to my current understanding, intentionally crushing the monitoring of the blacks with 2.35 is a reaction to the poor viewing conditions, and often quality, of consumer displays, and therefore I'm not that convinced it is actually good practice...?
Cheers,
F.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <avid-l2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Go 2.35. That is the European standard. For more pain inducing information on the subject:
"Rec. 709 is written as if it specifies the capture and transfer characteristics of HDTV encoding - that is, as if it were scene-referred. However, in practice it is output (display) referred with the convention of a 2.4-power function display [2.35 power function in EBU recommendations]. (Rec. 709 and sRGB share the same primary chromaticities and white point chromaticity; however, sRGB is explicitly output (display) referred with an average gamma of 2.2.)"
From: <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._709>>
And if you want yet more pain, you can always go to Charles Poynton:
<<http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/GammaFAQ.pdf>>
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Fabrice Altman" <fabricealtman@...> wrote:
>
> > The new standard is 2.4.
>
> Ha! Standard ? ;)
>
> So, because 2.4 is not in the prefs, would you crush a bit less (2.35) or a bit more (2.45) (assuming the monitor is calibrated) ?
>
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@> wrote:
> >
> > The new standard is 2.4.
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Fabrice Altman" <fabricealtman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we use a JVC DT-V24G1E to monitor our edits.
> > > It's got a gamma setting options of 2.2, 2.35, 2.45 or 2.6.
> > >
> > > It's at 2.2 by default but I'm tempted to put it at 2.35 or 2.45.
> > > No calibration science involved, just a hunch when I see regular
> > > TVs around...
> > >
> > > Would that sort of make sense?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > F.
> > >
> >
>
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (23) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment