3 ms·
Well sure, many were aware of gamma correction, but everyone's so used with how incorrect compositing looks, that it works "fine" in their mind. And being aware
by BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
Well sure, many were aware of gamma correction, but everyone's so used with how incorrect compositing looks, that it works "fine" in their mind. And being aware of gamma doesn't mean you truly grok the extent of visual corruption that spreads in images while compositing, scaling, editing etc.
I heard explanations how it'd be slow, or doesn't matter, or what am I talking about, all ultimately variations of "works as coded, won't fix".
There are clearly people at Adobe who are aware of the issue in some capacity, and their efforts have weird specifics, such as... they noticed text anti-aliasing looks weird, so they added an Advanced Control called "Blend Text Colors Using Gamma" option in Color Settings. The bizarre thing is that none of this is specific to text. It's just that text has many small complex shape edges, and you notice it more on text (like Carmack noticed it on the star field). They didn't fix vector art rendering, for example. And the option default is not even the correct gamma for a document, but 1.45 which makes no sense at all. They just "eyed it" and went with it.
There's also a Blend RGB Colors Using Gamma option which is disabled by default. If you enable it, it corrects SOME operations, but not others, with no rhyme or reason. However, you can't really tweak those yourself, because if you do, the settings are not saved per document, they're global. So if you tweak them... then ALL Photoshop files you open will look wrong, because they were originally made for another configuration of these settings. Which leaves you with 32-bit color channels. I have Actions that convert an image to 32-bit to scale, and back to 8/16-bit, just so it's gamma corrected.
It's... a f***ing mess.
- meindnoch 3y agoJohn Novak proposes a different hypothesis for Photoshop's choice of gamma=1.42 in text antialiasing: "Photoshop antialiases text using γ=1.42 by default, and this indeed seems to yield the best looking results (middle image). The reason for this is that most fonts have been designed for gamma-incorrect font rasterizers, hence if you use linear space (correctly), then the fonts will look thinner than they should." https://blog.johnnovak.net/2016/09/21/what-every-coder-should-know-about-gamma/ https://blog.johnnovak.net/2016/09/21/what-every-coder-shoul...
- leni536 3y agoFonts designed with incorrect gamma rendering also assume specific colors for foreground and background. With incorrect gamma the stems get thicker when rendered black on a white background, and thinner with inverse colors. So even if a font is designed with incorrect gamma, it might still not be the best to render it with incorrect gamma, as you might use different background and foreground colors to the designer of the font. AFAIK freetype has the option to enable "stem thickening" to consistently correct for incorrectly designed fonts regardless of colors being used for rendering.