It’s still unclear to me exactly which color space the “wide Gamut selector” consists of … is it Adobe RGB, DCI-P3, NTSC or Rec2020?
It’s important isn’t it because it would mean that a lot of colors selected would be “invisible” if one doesn’t have the suitable monitor to match that color space (not even speaking about the average viewer).
I current have monitor leaning toward DCI-P3 about 98% … so would be good to know what wide gamut clor space one would be working with if selected for the popup.
But you can get one directly from the ICC website:
Although, chances are that what you want is a Display P3 profile (at least that’s what Apple devices and monitors like the BenQ DesignVue series use as reference), you can get the one Apple defined there too:
Thanks again … So is there a difference between the two? I’m still VERY new to all this and learning …
I’m thinking maybe from what I have read on the web, the difference might be the “gamma” … original DCI P3 was created for home movie theatres and Apple adjusted it to fit monitors, that right?
I don’t have an Apple monitor, but a Dell … think should work for the same, though obviously different manufacturers do things differently.
I’m surprised that Krita hasn’t made an official P3 color space, as from what I have read, it’s kind of the “sRGB of the near future”, especially for video editing and game designers.
Compare the two linked pages with each other, and you can work out the differences yourself, it can’t be that difficult to recognize the differences there.
At least, I firmly believe that you are able to figure it out for yourself.*
How these differences are displayed on your monitor, you can only determine for yourself anyway, probably they will be minimal (DCI-P3-DCI.icc) to undetectable (DCI-P3-D65.icc), depending on which of the SMPTE profiles you compare with the Apple profile (Display P3.icc).
And I’m surprised about this question.
Why should Krita create an (official) color space, preferably one of its own? For that, why on suspicion? I think there are more than enough color spaces at the moment, there is no need to add to the confusion among users, one look at this and your other topic is proof enough of that. Not every chef has to cook his own soup, and just because Apple or Photoshop do it would be the worst possible argument in my eyes.
It is not unlikely that P3 will achieve this status, but is it certain that this color space will replace sRGB? Neither video editing nor game design is Krita’s target audience, so why focus on that?
Krita offers the possibility to include any profile, either during document creation, or, as a tip for those who are not afraid of operating their computer**, you deposit the profiles right away in the path “\share\color\icc\krita\” within the installation directory of Krita.
Michelist
*Those who don’t learn anything for themselves, learn less. You can benefit from it.
** Argh, help, mommy, I might make a mistake.***
*** If one never does anything, one don’t make mistakes, but one don’t make progress either! I like to say then!
Well in terms of available colors, in a properly color managed environment there is no difference. But since colors are encoded differently, they need to be converted all the time between editing and displaying, which costs some performance compared to using the same document and display profile.
Also, if someone views the images in an application without proper color management (which still includes Firefox in its default configuration ), the Display P3 one will look correct on a Display P3 display (and “only” noticably less saturated on an sRGB display), the DCI-P3 one will have distorted gamma.
The white point difference is more of a theoretical difference, ICC V4 defacto eliminated the vague concept of absolute colorimetric for display profiles, so it will not try to simulate the “true” white of a color space if the white points don’t match. Printing is a different story though, and I haven’t checked if it affects soft proofing with absolute colorimetric…
Well one issue is not stepping on someone’s copyright claims when including profiles. Basically, to be on the safe side, you have to compile one with the parameters yourself and give it a fancy name, like Elle Stone did. “ClayRGB” is an AdobeRGB clone, “LargeRGB” a ProPhoto clone etc…
Well that’s your narrow opinion isn’t it!
If you can’t give any helpful replies then why bother? I wouldn’t be asking if I didn’t feel i might benefit from someone else’s knowledge, something maybe I might not have understood or overlooked.
And why not add a very big modern color space, why ignore, it would only be beneficial towards Krita. It wouldn’t be re-creating any color profile, it would just be adding like the rest of the color profiles.
Really, if you can’t say anything helpful then just don’t say anything at all, at least when it comes to replies to other people queries!
Ah I didn’t even think about copyright silly me, thought these color spaces were all just universally used. Makes sense, thanks.
Well in terms of available colors, in a properly color managed environment there is no difference. But since colors are encoded differently, they need to be converted all the time between editing and displaying, which costs some performance compared to using the same document and display profile.
Also, if someone views the images in an application without proper color management (which still includes Firefox in its default configuration ), the Display P3 one will look correct on a Display P3 display (and “only” noticably less saturated on an sRGB display), the DCI-P3 one will have distorted gamma.
The white point difference is more of a theoretical difference, ICC V4 defacto eliminated the vague concept of absolute colorimetric for display profiles, so it will not try to simulate the “true” white of a color space if the white points don’t match. Printing is a different story though, and I haven’t checked if it affects soft proofing with absolute colorimetric…
That’s very informative thank you. I actually contacted the guy “Phil Green” from the link page you shared with me and he replied similarly with this below, if of any interest…
I been trying to understand how to best use color space with my new monitor and takes some to understand and wrap my head around it all, so thanks again for input.
So first of all, no, the monitor profile should not be used as a working space. It can be used as a display profile.
It’s my understanding that if you apply your monitor profile at the OS level, you should not then also try to apply that profile in e.g. Krita. It would get applied twice, resulting in an incorrect display output.
IMO it’s preferable to just let the OS handle the colour management, if possible, because then all applications should be handled the same. If you just apply a profile in Krita, it will suddenly look different in another viewer on the same computer.
Noted regarding using monitor profile only for the display.
So I think it is then best as it seems for general purposes to keep Krita with it’s default sRGB bult in gamut profile … thinking my DCI P3 friendly monitor would be able to take advantage of 100% the sRGB gamut.
What I’m also trying to work out is if I’m working on specific job that require the wider gamut, how I can take advantage of my monitors capabilities … thus original querying more to understand just what Krita’s wide gamut was, which Lynx kindly clarified … again, if I have a wide gamut monitor I want to try work out how I can best take advantage of it, how to and when to.
Totally new to be this field, wrapping my head around it, but much clearer now, thanks for all input.
), the Display P3 one will look correct on a Display P3 display (and “only” noticably less saturated on an sRGB display), the DCI-P3 one will have distorted gamma.