Interfaces: PC and MAC and the screenGamma property...

[Richard Gaskin]

Martin Baxter wrote the best explanation of the Mac gamma I've read yet:

>> Alex Rice wrote
>> 
>> On Jan 3, 2004, at 9:07 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:
>>> As fine as Macs are for creating print and video, last I heard, they
>>> only had a 3% marketshare for all computers. So, all those other
>>> computers are viewing on 'non-Mac' gamma settings. I'm with Richard
>>> and believe Apple should consider adopting the predominant gamma
>>> standard. The first thing I did when getting the i-Book was reset the
>>> gamma.
>> 
>> I am not arguing with 97% making a de-facto standard. But I'm asking,
>> if there is/was a good reason for the Mac's funky gamma, if it was born
>> before the MS Windows PC gamma, and if it is a matter of principle that
>> Mac's haven't switched to the predominant standard. I'm not a graphics
>> professional- just curious.
> 
> Yes there is a reason for "Mac funky gamma", which is that it results in
> colours on screen that closely reflect the actual image data ;-) - which is
> not only a nicety but actually of great importance in the print industry
> where colour mistakes have potential to be a serious and expensive issue.
> The print industry is one where the mac has had an historical dominance.
> Why would it benefit Apple to upset those customers? How many new customers
> would it get if it adopted uncorrected gamma as standard? Might it actually
> just end up with 2% market share instead?

Unfortunately that's already happened:
<http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/78/jobs.html>

[An aside about that article:  While it describes the weaknesses inherent in
focusing on technological innovation without also innovating other aspects
of business throughput, the upside is that the other aspects are not as
demanding.  The implication is very positive, suggesting that Apple could at
any time apply their trademark innovative thinking to these less glamorous
aspects as they do with product design, thereby acheiving the same results
as other successful business-process innovators while maintaining advantage
in the product experience.]


> Richard's (conceivably mischievous) opinion that Apple should discard gamma
> correction seems to rest on the assumption that Mac Gamma is just a
> perverse nuisance that confers no benefit.

I'm far too ignorant of the details to have made claims about Apple's
decision on color management, but I did raise a sincere question:  can we
reach a little higher to find a way to have excellent color correction
without the aggregate loss of millions of human hours each year in
multi-platfom workflows?

This article suggests that since Win ME color correction is not the issue it
used to be:
<http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/tech/color/wincolormgmt.mspx>

I recognize the article is published by convicted antitrust violators and
may therefore be even more suspect than any other vendor's argument about
why buying into their solution is "superior".

But on balance, I also recognize that both platforms have much in common so
there must be a way for ingenuity to prevail over lost time.

I'm admittedly close to completely ignorant of the demands of color
correction for quality printing; as a multimedia dude I use my cheap printer
less than once a month (Dan Friedman calls my printer "crappy" and I concur
<g>).  There may well be many aspects of this that are beyond what little
understanding I can gain from a handful of Web articles.

Still, this color layman can't help but wonder:

Cameras, scanners, displays, printers, and ICC profiles are already
interoperable, so the only remaining element is the OS color management
scheme.  To what degree is the current disparity between OSes driven by
truly technical constraints, and to what degree may technical considerations
be hampered by human weaknesses like NIH (the "not invented here" syndrome)
or mere adherence to the past?

In short, if the problem of color correction is universal, why can't there
be a universal solution?


This is an excellent point:

> Surely interoperability can be achieved without abolishing biodiversity?
> Isn't that supposed to be the intention of the Internet?
> Just because the great majority of users don't know what screen-gamma is or
> could care less, it does not follow that no manufacturer should offer a
> system designed for those who do.
> 
> Let's not lose sight of the fact that the whole point of computers is
> precisely that they are tools that may be adapted to individual and
> minority requirements.

Essential to sound democratic (people-driven) systems is that minorities are
given protections from mob rule.  Assimilation is for lower organisms.

But since all sides suffer a loss from the current disparity with color
management, can we find a way to maintain the experiential benefits of
choosing one OS over another without necessarily accepting lost productivity
as a by-product?


Your dreamy optimist friend who maintains the belief that human-derived
systems can always be improved,
-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___________________________________________________________
 Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com