>gamma encoding applies a non-linear curve that approximates human vision IIUC it's a similar bit optimization scheme to allocate bits fairly across the entire

>gamma encoding applies a non-linear curve that approximates human vision IIUC it's a similar bit optimization scheme to allocate bits fairly across the entire dynamic range. The only difference is the curve used (log vs gamma). You are right in that "log" is probably more uniform from a physics perspective (something about each f-stop getting same # of bits) while "gamma" is supposedly more uniform from a perceptual perspective (something about steven's power rule). Note that even storing things in floating point is also effectively a form of log encoding since density of floating point numbers halves when you double the range. To me they feel more similar than they are different, which is why it's annoying that there's this completely parallel set of terminology used for photography vs video-editing and I haven't been able to find a rosetta stone to translate between the two (part of this is undoubtedly because icc color management requires digital computers, while film making existed as a field long before that) * log-encoding :: gamma encoding * EOTF/OETF :: Gamma/transfer function (n.b. eotf not necessary inverse of oetf, unlike gamma) * LUT application :: ICC color space conversion * Video-workflow (make edits directly in target color space) :: Photo workflow (transfer edits to source color space) * NCLC tag :: ICC color profile