Thanks for answering, Carlos.
A sensible answer as always, on which we shall agree and disagree :-)
Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
> Hi Fernando and all,
>
>
> The machine is currently in use by dad, mainly as a musical score editor --
> with a propietary program that won't work under the clumsy Classic emulation
> -- another lie from Steve: "They all work, and work well" :-( The 7500 it's
> his "virtual backing pianist" (he plays the violin, as you can see at <
> http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=12&pic=7>)
>
Interesting, I used to have a couple of those programs running in my
6500 - they came from the IRCAM, Paris.
AND - about n years ago John Chowning
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chowning> visited Montevideo and I
assisted to an amazing concert done on Max
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_(software)>, all out of an intel mac
laptop - before the core 2 duo.
> Can't tell for sure because my "card" is different. I do remember that at
> one point (of software updating) a minor function (full screen
> playthrough) was lost.
>
In my case, an horrid noise was 'added' :-)
> I can't believe that... obviously, MacOS had no "uninstall" companion apps
> like Win or OSX, but manual removing is easy: just open System Folder ->
> Extensions and remove all QT related items (info windows can help with
> that), and the same within Control Panels folder (there's one QT item there)
> and in Preferences folder. Finally remove the (awful) QT Player 4 app, which
> does need QT4 to work -- probably you'll need to restart in order to empty
> the trash. Then install QT3 normally... IIRC.
>
Yes, you do recall well.
Did all you say, and QT3 seemed to be there - but the Avid card won't work.
After I rebuilt the computer (fortunately found an old LaCie CD Rom to
Toast the backup ...) it did. Ha ...
> OTOH, I don't know how to do that in Winders, esp. those Registry
> nightmares... neither in OS X, unless you're willing to dive between 180000+
> hidden files (not kidding here!)
>
nightmare ... that happened after deleting four QT entries in
C:\WINDOWS\regedit.exe, and my color settings in CS3 changed .... grrrrr.
>
>
> I really don't mess about colour spaces... the 300D allows sRGB and aRGB,
> tried both and aRGB looked (obviously) somewhat pale, so discarded it...
>
well, I do care and mess about on these - my later explorations were in
Lab mode, but lost my initial enthusiasm-
and no, despite Mr. Ling having advised me on the contrary, I still get
aRGB files from my 4000ED which don't look pale at all - unless I had
what Ian may be watching at: a calibrated Eizo CG241W monitor.
Mr.Ling advice launched me into a search of a better workflow in levels
and curves on NikonScan 402. I'm almost there ... it seems that I'm
almost there :-)
>> Under Edit -> Color Settings -> Advanced Controls, there's a checkbox 'Blend
>> RGB colors using gamma [ 1 ]' Should I check it and leave '1' as the most
>> appropriate value? By default, the box comes un - checked. Why?
>>
>
>
> Probably because it's the most reasonable setting for most us mortals ;-)
>
mmmmmmmmm . It comes un checked so as to maintain the CS3 Suite
synchronized, which I care none.
So, the proper question should have been: which value is the proper
value to write there?
Should it be 1, 1.8, 2.2, native gamma, utopic gamma ... lol - this is
Physics, Carlos: we should have a reasonable reason, not a most probable
reasonable reason.
>> I'm suffering metaphysic concerns regarding gamma values: 1 is the gray
>> point value in the histogram, is it at the same time gamma = 1?
>>
>
>
> Again, we could get crazy thru this way... I always liked to have a "natural
> gamma" reproduction on the screen, that is: a checkered black-white pattern
> should look (at a distance) THE SAME as a 50% grey area -- if not, there's
> some gamma correction missing.
>
That's logical, not crazy.
> But then those colour spaces make additional corrections, trying to
> normalize the values no matter the device...
I was planning to buy a new Manfrotto - now a device which matters: an
Eizo ?
> since there are so many links
> in the chain, I usually do some trial and error within the final device,
> i.e. the prints: I adjust a file in order to get it the nicest on _my_
> screen, and make a trial print... it will look different, but then I try to
> readjust my file in order to make it lool like the (bad) test print -- say,
> I had to make a 0.8 gamma correction.
This is just what Ken advised me shortly before you re-joined.
In fact, I could finally get the Fuji Frontier icc profiles which are
currently used in Montevideo.
But _ what if I am not in the need of printing ? Recently, I've been
asked for some photographs to be displayed only, hopefully on a
Viewsonic or Samsung lcd ...
The way both you and Ken suggest, looks too empirical for me - which
does not imply that I discard it.
In fact, it's how one can make Photoshop command the printer (searching
the Help files ... ) - but it's not firmly advised.
> Then I know that in order to get the
> prints (more or less) the same as I saw them in the screen, I have to apply
> on a copy of the files the _opposite_ correction (e.g. gamma =>1 / 0.8 =
> 1.25). Usually it's enough for me, otherwise it could become utopian...
>
Understood: correcting an error with another error ... all too common. I
should move to Utopia :-)
Remember you are checking an additive against a subtracting method,
beware of gamut limits - I know you are aware of this.
>> Then, there are windows gamma values and mac gamma values, and native gamma
>> values too - at least in Mac OS, Classic and OS-X.
>>
>
>
> I understand the native gamma as the correction needed for the screen (or
> output device) in order to behave linearly, if the computer sends a
> completely linear scale.
Great ! - see if I understood well: I should not choose 'native gamma'
when calibrating with ColorSync.
OS-X is confusing for me at this point, since it only has a checkbox at
the bottom left, and IIRC it overrides your just-done calibration.
Why do they show such a choice, in bold letters, if it's only a correction?
And the word 'native' is misleading: when you read ColorSync, (IIRC)
there it says apple native gamma is 1.8 while pc is 2.2 etc.
Looks more like a value to fix anything on, as if it was a 'constant' in
Physics. Well, right: a constant is a value one must use to get to the
real measurement figure .... (!?).
And then it comes a choice about Target gamma ... cannot check this now,
the iMac G3 running Tiger is my mother's computer :-)
> Then there are the 'target gamma' values, which I
> don't understand fully... maybe they represent partial corrections from the
> native value?
>
I will ask my mother, tomorrow when I visit her :-)))))
>> See why I still shoot film ?? - really, I don't like these 'petite machines'
>> - simply put, now you can't get rid of them.
>>
>
>
> Many people live very happy today... without computers.
>
Indeed, but let's not enter into politics this afternoon ......
Many people live happy provided they don't ask or get to know anything
different.
Remember why we're out of Paradise.
Happiness in not an end in itself, it's only a means to an end
(paraphrasing Robert Fripp).
>> Just like in obsessive-compulsive neurosis, you can't get rid of rituals ;-)
>>
> OMG! ;-)
LOL LOL LOL
Fernando.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|