[ishook]

I'm not sure it's supposed to work this way - so let me explain and maybe you guys can help me out...

I have a wood map that I have open in photoshop viewed under the Adobe98 color space. (RGB 8-bit).

I also have a render of the wood in Maxwell, lit by two 6500K lights. The map of the wood is basically has 0 sheen so I can test the color.

When rendered and shown (in Maxwell) in the Adobe98 color space, the wood loses some red compared to the file open in photoshop. When I switch the Maxwell render to the sRGB color space, it matches up perfectly. When I bring the sRGB render into photoshop, and either leave "as is" or convert to Adobe 98, it matches up perfectly there too.

My thoughts are that the Maxwell image saved out as Adobe98 should come in perfectly, and that sRGB should come in to photoshop as not-matching. But the opposite is true. Can anybody explain why this is the case?

Thank you,
Ian

[tom]

When you open a non-sRGB image (without asking for a profile conversion), Photoshop simulates it on the monitor using sRGB colors. Maxwell viewport does not make this kind of simulation. It shows the pixels of other color spaces as if they were all sRGB values so, you can only see them correctly when you open these renders in Photoshop or other imaging applications having color profile simulation and/or conversion features.

[ishook]

I'm not sure I fully understand. I guess intuitively, I thought I was getting a more accurate preview in Maxwell by previewing it in Adobe98 color space, since I'd be working with it as Adobe 98 in photoshop. As far as previewing in Maxwell and bringing it into Photoshop, sRGB has the highest color accuracy. That doesn't _feel_ like it should work that way.

-unless I'm just not understanding how it should work-

[Half Life]

Your monitor is a sRGB device unless you have a special monitor that can manage a larger gamut like Adobe RGB 1998 (see Eizo) therefor all programs are showing you your photos, renders, etc in sRGB.

This is the standard that most of the big manufacturers agreed to, the downside is you really don't know what you have except in the most general of terms without special monitors... the upside is that most devices/programs will agree with each other within the sRGB color space (which is the point).

Best,
Jason.

[Half Life]

After re-reading your original post I think the maps come into Maxwell via the Material as sRGB data -- so they are converted at some point already to sRGB and therefor would be correct in staying sRGB as output. I don't believe the Arroway maps have the Adobe RGB 1998 profile embedded.

Maybe.

Best,
Jason.

[ishook]

Thanks Half Life. Personally it doesn't work the way I think it should, but that's not my call. I'm just going to keep saving out as sRGB and bringing it in as Adobe98. My bitmap file was saved out as Adobe98, so I assumed an "always Adobe98" workflow would be the most accurate. I think my lack of understanding color spaces is hurting my understanding of what maxwell is doing with the data.

[ishook]

And thanks to you too, Tom.

[tom]

Currently, Maxwell supports/assumes all textures in sRGB but, it renders without a gamut restriction so, you can save the output in larger color spaces.

[NathanDan]

If the render is not restricted by gamut, would it be at all possible in the future to load a particular monitors calibration upon saving, or would this feature be unnecessary?

[tom]

to load a particular monitors calibration upon saving

Sorry, I didn't understand the question.

[NathanDan]

For instance instead of saving with the sRGB option, maybe being able to load and save with a monitor icc profile, created during hardware or software monitor color calibration with something like a Spyder3, ColorMunki or Eye1 display?
I think a direct path from maxwell to post production to print might help some people, I could be wrong here though, i'm pretty new to color management and unsure of the best methods for color consistency, between post production stages and print. Thinking about it, this idea may only suite a very small minority out there though..

[max3d]

For instance instead of saving with the sRGB option, maybe being able to load and save with a monitor icc profile, created during hardware or software monitor color calibration with something like a Spyder3, ColorMunki or Eye1 display?
I think a direct path from maxwell to post production to print might help some people, I could be wrong here though, i'm pretty new to color management and unsure of the best methods for color consistency, between post production stages and print. Thinking about it, this idea may only suite a very small minority out there though..

You are the proud owner of one of the best monitors money can buy! If you want to print what you see you should focus on profiles for ECI 2.0 (although this is an European standard for softproofing, I'm not sure if it's used in the US. Your monitor even passes a full UGRA test so should be able to see exactly what will be on your prints.

Your monitor is actually more than a wide gamut monitor as it has a much larger colourspace. It's not restricted to 8 bits, but can internally handle much large color spaces and you could even use them as input. On an earlier question by me (as I own the 24" version of yours) Tom said that this couldn't be done. It didnt become clear to me what would then be the best possible profile we could use. I would prefer at least 3D luts and still think Maxwell could easily produce these for the renderer, but like I said I didn't complete understandTom's post so I'm still unsure.

sRGB is a sort of informal 'standard' on the internet in the sense that it's more or less the default and all applications without support for colour profiles or working spaces will display it properly. However it's also an extremely limited colour space. There is an enormous amount of the full NTSC colour standard missing so you don't have the purple and neon colours, nor do you have the variations in green your eye can easily discern.

I don't know about the Maxwell users per se, but I assume that everybody who makes his living from CG at least has a proper (meaning non TN panel), colour calibrated monitor with a native wide gamut. Yours is much more capable but the baseline will be what i just described. As Maxwell internally has a colour space which can't be described in RGB terms it has to be converted anyway. That means that you would like to tell it to what profile it should render. Tom states this is entirely possible. It's only the 3d lut thing which is unclear.

the only downside of using wider gamut images is that they will render overly saturated on standard office and gamers monitors or other old sRGB monitors. You need to use colour profile conscious software as f.i Photoshop, but you also need to understand that your images will look wrong on the internet if you don't process them to sRGB. Only the newest of browsers have support for colour profiles (f.i. Firefox). So you can't use it as a web delivery medium but it's great to work and you get much better prints this way.

I hope this is understandable. It's a complex subject where it's not easy to say what's best. It really depends on the kind of output material you need. However you will always be capable to get better pictures, even for the web, when using in a wider gamut and then converting.

Max.

[tom]

For instance instead of saving with the sRGB option, maybe being able to load and save with a monitor icc profile, created during hardware or software monitor color calibration with something like a Spyder3, ColorMunki or Eye1 display?

It could be. But currently, Maxwell doesn't support ICC/ICM files for color space profiling and it's limited to the color spaces under the combo. The interface does not have a color management system and the render display is limited to sRGB independent of your monitor. But, this does not mean you cannot render and save your images in larger gamuts.

I think a direct path from maxwell to post production to print might help some people, I could be wrong here though, i'm pretty new to color management and unsure of the best methods for color consistency, between post production stages and print. Thinking about it, this idea may only suite a very small minority out there though..

The bridge "maxwell to print" is only possible with integrating a standard color management system such as Adobe ICM etc. and it's beyond our scope at the moment. I strongly suggest Adobe Photoshop for these purposes.

[NathanDan]

Thanks for your help Max and Tom, yes this is a topic that one can get lost in understanding things, luckily i have learned a lot from the two of you just then about what is possible. I think with display port connections becoming increasingly more available in graphics cards we will be able to have a lot more control over color management via the 10bit route. It is indeed exciting times ahead, in the past 2 years a lot of the problems and issues I had with monitors in general have become somewhat resolved through great and affordable technological advancement. Off to learn some more ...