chevron_left chevron_right
Login Register invert_colors photo_library


Upgrade your account to hide advertisements.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


filter_list Tutorial Colours on the web | Bit depth, gamut, sRGB, Adobe RGB and more!
Author
Message
RE: Colours on the web | Bit depth, gamut, sRGB, Adobe RGB and more! #11
Thanks for this, it was a nice read and I learned a bit.
I never knew that about PNG, it's a bit disappointing that no great formats are used... FLIF seems neat (http://flif.info), and Apple recently created a new format called HEIC. However, I don't know anything about the color accuracy of either yet; I'll look into it.

[Image: mmK6Zjs.png]

Reply

RE: Colours on the web | Bit depth, gamut, sRGB, Adobe RGB and more! #12
I finally got around to reading the thread. A few things:

RGB are not the only primary colors. May have been a mistake because you later mentioned another set of primary colors. As far as learning that in grade-school, traditionally RYB is taught growing up as a subtractive color model.

As for JPEG being better than PNG for richer colors, I'm skeptical about the legitimacy of that currently. Current versions of PNG I believe support more colors than JPEG, while also offering transparency and lossless compression. Of course, at the cost of much larger file sizes.

Lastly, I'm wondering if anyone else views the 8-bit greyscale as smoother than the 16-bit greyscale in the picture posted in the OP?

Those are just a few thoughts I had as I read through, and other than some grammar and spelling editing that would be nice, it was a nice share. Thanks.
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2018, 07:40 AM by God.)
"If you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room."

[+] 1 user Likes God's post
Reply

RE: Colours on the web | Bit depth, gamut, sRGB, Adobe RGB and more! #13
(01-21-2018, 07:27 AM)God Wrote: I finally got around to reading the thread. A few things:

RGB are not the only primary colors. May have been a mistake because you later mentioned another set of primary colors. As far as learning that in grade-school, traditionally RYB is taught growing up as a subtractive color model.

As for JPEG being better than PNG for richer colors, I'm skeptical about the legitimacy of that currently. Current versions of PNG I believe support more colors than JPEG, while also offering transparency and lossless compression. Of course, at the cost of much larger file sizes.

Lastly, I'm wondering if anyone else views the 8-bit greyscale as smoother than the 16-bit greyscale in the picture posted in the OP?

Those are just a few thoughts I had as I read through, and other than some grammar and spelling editing that would be nice, it was a nice share. Thanks.

That have come out wrong then, and I completely forgot about RYB as it was so long ago workign with it. Read up on a few articles today about it, and apparently
people want to change it with CMYK as it has the possibility of giving a broader ragne of colours as oppose to RYB. Both has some imperfections. I will read some
more on both those later today I hope, and then update thread accordingly. Thanks for reminding me. Was too focused on the digital aspect of it, where it's additive.

And yes they can hold much more information, especially colours, but that doesn't make them any more accurate in their representation. I have tested them and
what I found was that JPEG gives better colours. I also read articles on the matter and they also testified to this. In general for imagery JPEG is best as the compression
is not likely to be visible even when you compare side-by-side. If you want to test yourself, remember to start with an image that actually has the information to begin
with and is colour managed, as well as exporting properly.

The image can be due to the dithering Photoshop applies automatically to 8 BPC to compensate for the "large steps" of colour.
Some areas are just as big, but some are "narrower" in the 16 BPC, giving actual smoother appearance when zoomed out compared to visible banding even with dithering.
I'll try to change the image later when I get the time. It comes to a certain point where the dithering isn't enough to cover up the low bit depth, and that's where 16 BPC
comers in to save the day. It becomes even smoother if you apply some dithering to that.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018, 05:08 PM by VirtusGraphics.)

Reply

RE: Colours on the web | Bit depth, gamut, sRGB, Adobe RGB and more! #14
TL;DR: it needs more jpeg

Reply

RE: Colours on the web | Bit depth, gamut, sRGB, Adobe RGB and more! #15
(01-22-2018, 05:02 PM)VirtusGraphics Wrote:
(01-21-2018, 07:27 AM)God Wrote: I finally got around to reading the thread. A few things:

RGB are not the only primary colors. May have been a mistake because you later mentioned another set of primary colors. As far as learning that in grade-school, traditionally RYB is taught growing up as a subtractive color model.

As for JPEG being better than PNG for richer colors, I'm skeptical about the legitimacy of that currently. Current versions of PNG I believe support more colors than JPEG, while also offering transparency and lossless compression. Of course, at the cost of much larger file sizes.

Lastly, I'm wondering if anyone else views the 8-bit greyscale as smoother than the 16-bit greyscale in the picture posted in the OP?

Those are just a few thoughts I had as I read through, and other than some grammar and spelling editing that would be nice, it was a nice share. Thanks.

That have come out wrong then, and I completely forgot about RYB as it was so long ago workign with it. Read up on a few articles today about it, and apparently
people want to change it with CMYK as it has the possibility of giving a broader ragne of colours as oppose to RYB. Both has some imperfections. I will read some
more on both those later today I hope, and then update thread accordingly. Thanks for reminding me. Was too focused on the digital aspect of it, where it's additive.

And yes they can hold much more information, especially colours, but that doesn't make them any more accurate in their representation. I have tested them and
what I found was that JPEG gives better colours. I also read articles on the matter and they also testified to this. In general for imagery JPEG is best as the compression
is not likely to be visible even when you compare side-by-side. If you want to test yourself, remember to start with an image that actually has the information to begin
with and is colour managed, as well as exporting properly.

The image can be due to the dithering Photoshop applies automatically to 8 BPC to compensate for the "large steps" of colour.
Some areas are just as big, but some are "narrower" in the 16 BPC, giving actual smoother appearance when zoomed out compared to visible banding even with dithering.
I'll try to change the image later when I get the time. It comes to a certain point where the dithering isn't enough to cover up the low bit depth, and that's where 16 BPC
comers in to save the day. It becomes even smoother if you apply some dithering to that.

Yes, CMYK is the 'improved' RYB if you will.

I'm also not sold on JPEG somehow having "better" colors. Colors are bits of information, and if latest versions of PNG can serve the same amount of data in terms of colors as JPEG, along with alpha transparency when needed, and lossless compression, I don't see how it could be worse. It may not be feasible saving big pictures of scenery as png due to size drawbacks, but I would like to see some data confirming that if size wasn't the issue, JPEG is a higher quality choice.

Thanks for the explanation on the image. It looks smoother due to not having the visible vertical lines.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2018, 12:30 AM by God.)
"If you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room."

Reply

RE: Colours on the web | Bit depth, gamut, sRGB, Adobe RGB and more! #16
(01-23-2018, 03:14 AM)God Wrote:
(01-22-2018, 05:02 PM)VirtusGraphics Wrote:
(01-21-2018, 07:27 AM)God Wrote: I finally got around to reading the thread. A few things:

RGB are not the only primary colors. May have been a mistake because you later mentioned another set of primary colors. As far as learning that in grade-school, traditionally RYB is taught growing up as a subtractive color model.

As for JPEG being better than PNG for richer colors, I'm skeptical about the legitimacy of that currently. Current versions of PNG I believe support more colors than JPEG, while also offering transparency and lossless compression. Of course, at the cost of much larger file sizes.

Lastly, I'm wondering if anyone else views the 8-bit greyscale as smoother than the 16-bit greyscale in the picture posted in the OP?

Those are just a few thoughts I had as I read through, and other than some grammar and spelling editing that would be nice, it was a nice share. Thanks.

That have come out wrong then, and I completely forgot about RYB as it was so long ago workign with it. Read up on a few articles today about it, and apparently
people want to change it with CMYK as it has the possibility of giving a broader ragne of colours as oppose to RYB. Both has some imperfections. I will read some
more on both those later today I hope, and then update thread accordingly. Thanks for reminding me. Was too focused on the digital aspect of it, where it's additive.

And yes they can hold much more information, especially colours, but that doesn't make them any more accurate in their representation. I have tested them and
what I found was that JPEG gives better colours. I also read articles on the matter and they also testified to this. In general for imagery JPEG is best as the compression
is not likely to be visible even when you compare side-by-side. If you want to test yourself, remember to start with an image that actually has the information to begin
with and is colour managed, as well as exporting properly.

The image can be due to the dithering Photoshop applies automatically to 8 BPC to compensate for the "large steps" of colour.
Some areas are just as big, but some are "narrower" in the 16 BPC, giving actual smoother appearance when zoomed out compared to visible banding even with dithering.
I'll try to change the image later when I get the time. It comes to a certain point where the dithering isn't enough to cover up the low bit depth, and that's where 16 BPC
comers in to save the day. It becomes even smoother if you apply some dithering to that.

Yes, CMYK is the 'improved' RYB if you will.

I'm also not sold on JPEG somehow having "better" colors. Colors are bits of information, and if latest versions of PNG can serve the same amount of data in terms of colors as JPEG, along with alpha transparency when needed, and lossless compression, I don't see how it could be worse. It may not be feasible saving big pictures of scenery as png due to size drawbacks, but I would like to see some data confirming that if size wasn't the issue, JPEG is a higher quality choice.

Thanks for the explanation on the image. It ended looks smoother due to not having the visible vertical lines.

It's a very logical argument you have and I don't have an explaination for it that makes sense.
At least not yet. Added to the list of things I want to look in to. Smile Will be busy for some days with
projects and whatnot, so might be some time until I get that done. If you find anything, please do
let me know and link me to various resources!

Reply






Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)