A topic that caused a great deal of
passionatediscussions is that
of the sRGBElectro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF): Should it be
the pure Gamma 2.2 function or the piece-wise function defined in
IEC 61966-2-1:1999 Standard?
To put is another way: Should a display calibrated to sRGB adopt the
pure Gamma 2.2 function or the piece-wise function?
Warning
When using the term Gamma at
colour-science.org,
we are always referring to a pure power function whose exponent is
known as Gamma.
Note
IEC 61966-2-1:1999 Standard takes a radical stance on the term Gamma
in the Ambiguity in the Definition of the Term "Gamma" section:
Historically, both the photographic and television industries claim
integral use of the term "gamma" for different effects. Hurter and
Driffield first used the term in the 1890's in describing the
straight-line portion of the density vs. log exposure curves that
describe photographic sensitometry. The photographic sensitometry
field has used several interrelated terms to describe similar effects,
including; gamma, slope, gradient, and contrast. Both Languimier in the
1910's and Oliver in the 1940's defined "gamma" for the television
industry (and thus the computer graphics industry) as the exponential
value in both simple and complex power functions that describe the
relationship between gun voltage and intensity (or luminance). In fact,
even within the television industry, there are multiple, conflicting
definitions of "gamma." These include differences in describing
physical aspects (such as gun "gamma" and phosphor "gamma"). These also
include differences in equations for the same physical aspect
(there are currently at least three commonly used equations in the
computer graphics industry to describe the relationship between gun
voltage and intensity, all of which provide significantly different
results). After significant insightful feedback from many industries,
this standard has chosen to explicitly avoid the use of the term
"gamma." Furthermore, it appears that the usefulness as an unambiguous,
constructive standard terminology is impossible and its continued use
is detrimental to cross standard and unambiguous communication.
IEC 61966-2-1:1999 Standard lacks the clarity that would give the definitive
answer to the EOTF question. The quest takes on a muddy path when the
standard states what follows in 2.1 Reference Display Conditions:
Relative to this methodology, the reference display is characterised by the
equation below where\(V\prime{sRGB}\)is the input data signal and\(V{sRGB}\)is the output normalized luminance.
\(V{sRGB} = (V\prime{sRGB} + 0.0)^{2.2}\)
While it is effectively common to find displays adopting the Gamma 2.2
function as an EOTF, many, such as EIZO and
NEC are shipping with the
IEC 61966-2-1:1999 Standardpiece-wise function:
Fortunately, Jack Holm, technical secretary for IEC/TC 100/TA 2 which developed
the IEC 61966-2-1:1999 Standard is unambiguous about the sRGBEOTF
being the piece-wise function:
It should then be no surprise that the ACESsRGB ODT
also uses the piece-wise function. To finish and for good measure, let us
quote Charles Poynton:
It took me 4 years to decide that the sRGB linear “toe” needs to be part
of reference. CRTs were pure power function (GOGO if you like) all the way
down to zero. No LCD shipped in the last 19 years has exhibited that
behaviour externally. They all have a linear segment. QED.
Conclusion
If you are calibrating your display to the sRGBIEC 61966-2-1:1999 Standard,
your calibration target should be the piece-wise function. If you are
producing a display compliant with the sRGBIEC 61966-2-1:1999 Standard it
should adopt the piece-wise function.
Comments
Comments powered by Disqus