Joao Paulo Peleteiro
Active member
(nt)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Aperture's Color Space
- Thread starter Robin Casady
- Start date
Peter69322
Veteran Member
I stand corrected, thanks Julia.
not sure what you mean. I'm just assuming it's an rgb space that's even wider than prophoto. Am I missing something?
best....Peter
--
http://www.innerimager.com
Robin Casady
Veteran Member
Remember how the internal floppy and external floppy used to sing a duet as you worked?
Who would ever need more than 128K RAM?
You don't get it. The RAW image is in a color space that provides the widest possible gamut. Apple is not restricting you, they are allowing you to do what you want, then change your mind and do something else without consequences. You can view it in any supported color space, and you can output the file in any supported color space. You want to send ProPhotoRGB to your inkjet, no problem. You want to send AdobeRGB to your client, no problem. You want sRGB for the web? You can do it all from one image without worrying about clipping.
Robin
http://www.robincasady.com
Peter69322
Veteran Member
yep
do you use more now? ;> )Who would ever need more than 128K RAM?
I get it, I really do......Peter
--
http://www.innerimager.com
Mark den Hartog
Veteran Member
because this is how a camera interprets colour?
CMYK is a print space....
or isn't this what you mean?
CMYK is a print space....
or isn't this what you mean?
Julia Borg
Veteran Member
raw image is not in any color space as per definition of color space given by CIE.
Consequently, the term "gamut" may be misleading. Sensor records all the colours in the scene, not some subset.
--
Julia
Julia Borg
Veteran Member
Camera does not record color, it records levels of gray. Color is born in conversion
--
Julia
--
Julia
Robin Casady
Veteran Member
Apple didn't name it. I believe HDR is a standard that was developed for video. Photoshop CS2 already has limited support for HDR.
If I'm not mistaken, dynamic range can refer to a range of colors or a range of values. Dynamic range was used to describe film images before digital images existed. So, it is not just about bit depth.
Robin
http://www.robincasady.com
If I'm not mistaken, dynamic range can refer to a range of colors or a range of values. Dynamic range was used to describe film images before digital images existed. So, it is not just about bit depth.
Robin
http://www.robincasady.com
But if I am correct Dynamic range has to do with the amount of bits
in the image not the colourspace.
So it would be a strange name for a colourspace they should have
called it ApertureRGB
Robin Casady
Veteran Member
Don't you mean, levels of brightness? Since it is measuring the levels of brightness through red, green, and blue filters, it seems like it is correct to say it is recording levels of RGB. It isn't really a conversion. The conversion is from analog to digital.
Robin
http://www.robincasady.com
Robin
http://www.robincasady.com
Camera does not record color, it records levels of gray. Color is
born in conversion
--
Julia
Robin Casady
Veteran Member
The RAW image as it is within Aperture, not in the abstract. Perhaps it is not really RAW anymore?
I don't follow you.
Robin
http://www.robincasady.com
Julia Borg
Veteran Member
OK.
the so-called red, green, and blue filters
we can't simply say "RGB", we need to specify what is that RGB exactly. Different raw demosaicing routines will generate different RGB values for the same pixels of the same recorded image. Some demosaicing routines do not even work in RGB spaces, and their output is YUV, or something other. After the raw conversion that we do something to convert/map the image resulting from demosaicing into defined RGB space.
--
Julia
Julia Borg
Veteran Member
Internally, if it is raw - it has no color space at all. Externally. as soon as you see color model/image, it is not raw anymore.
Munsell Color Science Laboratory has some explanations on that, let me quote:
"...there is no such thing as a camera, or scanner, gamut. A gamut is defined as the range of colors that a given imaging device can display. To say that a camera had a gamut would be to imply that you could put a color in front of it that it could not possibly respond to. While it is certainly possible that two colors that are visually distinct might be mapped into the same color signals by a camera, that does not mean that the camera could not detect those colors. It just couldn't discriminate them.
..Since there is no such thing as a gamut for an input device, then there is no way to compute it or calculate a figure of merit."
--
Julia
MrBlonde
Well-known member
I'm not a big fan of Apple... but you can't argue with their track record of having a very keen eye for the the future. HDR is a good guess for where we are going. Currently I don't know of a camera that can record at 32-bits per channel, but Fuji may not be that far off with the R/S pixel idea.
IMHO, HDR is as good a starting place as any for image editing. At most, it costs you one extra step at the end of the image editing process, while it simultaneously guarantees you won't be 'clipping' any colors (at least with todays digital cameras). This is a tremendous benefit for the cost. I also trust Apple to write a fantastic colorspace down conversion routing (it was hard for me to type that).
If Aperture offers scripting, you could set it to process this final step in all your images in a matter of seconds/minutes, depending on how many pictures your shoot/edit
You may have to upgrade your computer to run Aperture (I actually doubt it), but its win/win for Apple!! It seems like a very logical starting point...
IMHO, HDR is as good a starting place as any for image editing. At most, it costs you one extra step at the end of the image editing process, while it simultaneously guarantees you won't be 'clipping' any colors (at least with todays digital cameras). This is a tremendous benefit for the cost. I also trust Apple to write a fantastic colorspace down conversion routing (it was hard for me to type that).
If Aperture offers scripting, you could set it to process this final step in all your images in a matter of seconds/minutes, depending on how many pictures your shoot/edit
You may have to upgrade your computer to run Aperture (I actually doubt it), but its win/win for Apple!! It seems like a very logical starting point...
frederic fahraeus
Leading Member
- Messages
- 947
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Robin!
Yeah! my mistake, youre right actually about Aperture and its got nothing to do with printing space etc.
All in all then I must say. Aperture is suddenly very intressting.
regards Fred
Yeah! my mistake, youre right actually about Aperture and its got nothing to do with printing space etc.
All in all then I must say. Aperture is suddenly very intressting.
regards Fred
Mark den Hartog
Veteran Member
but that is a given, we can not choose something besides RGB.
BJN
Veteran Member
Sportin' a Mac-fan attitude! I'm glad you don't get that way with Nikon stuff, I appreciate your objectivity toward other camera systems.
At least for my professional workflow I must be able to convert to and save files with a variety of color spaces and color models. But Aperture isn't a Photoshop replacement so I can't argue with it's make it stupid, simple approach. It's a pretty converter/browser with some nice sorting ideas. The proof of Apple's skills will be in the conversions. If it's a good converter it'll be welcome. If it's not so good the Mac-fan folks will still buy it and make excuses for the price and performance.
There isn't a laptop display today (Powerbook or otherwise) that's up to the task of professional image editing, so I wouldn't worry much that it'll take a fast workstation to run Aperture.
What I wonder about is the paltry raw support listed in the Aperture specs. No Fuji .raf support, not much more than Canon and Nikon DSLRs. If the list is this thin now, I wonder about the lag time for supporting new raw "flavors".
--
BJN
At least for my professional workflow I must be able to convert to and save files with a variety of color spaces and color models. But Aperture isn't a Photoshop replacement so I can't argue with it's make it stupid, simple approach. It's a pretty converter/browser with some nice sorting ideas. The proof of Apple's skills will be in the conversions. If it's a good converter it'll be welcome. If it's not so good the Mac-fan folks will still buy it and make excuses for the price and performance.
There isn't a laptop display today (Powerbook or otherwise) that's up to the task of professional image editing, so I wouldn't worry much that it'll take a fast workstation to run Aperture.
What I wonder about is the paltry raw support listed in the Aperture specs. No Fuji .raf support, not much more than Canon and Nikon DSLRs. If the list is this thin now, I wonder about the lag time for supporting new raw "flavors".
--
BJN
Nigel Turner
Well-known member
I can't understand for the life of me why you are all at odds with each other over something that has yet to be realeased!
Talk about experts on nothing they know about a program.
Must be a gearhead thing.. or maybe a comphead thing.. or is it a Mac thing?
I'd also like to know what a Mac can do that a PC can't... given today's tech.. which would lead me onto the next question, why would I need a Apple Mac?
OK.. your shout!
Talk about experts on nothing they know about a program.
Must be a gearhead thing.. or maybe a comphead thing.. or is it a Mac thing?
I'd also like to know what a Mac can do that a PC can't... given today's tech.. which would lead me onto the next question, why would I need a Apple Mac?
OK.. your shout!
Robert Peters
Veteran Member
possible questions on the subject of 'why buy a Mac': Does Internet Explorer perform color management? Does Windows perform color management?
Bob Peterrs
Bob Peterrs
Nigel Turner
Well-known member
But does the Mac?
What does the Mac do for Color that the PC doesn't?
What does the Mac do for Color that the PC doesn't?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum