Which color space?

Karel Bata

I'm currently using a Canon 600 to create time-lapse HDR videos. Here's a test sample http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX0BrOlgOzw

The 600's color space defaults to sRGB, and there is the option of switching to Adobe. Which should I use? My understanding is that sRGB is inferior, but is adequate for the internet or cheap monitors. But I want to aim higher than that. So should I go Adobe, even if I can't currently see the difference?

To complicate matters, tone-mapping would surely be pulling in information that isn't visible normally? I'm only guessing there though.

Cheers!

angevin1

Karel Bata wrote: »

I'm currently using a Canon 600 to create time-lapse HDR videos. Here's a test sample http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX0BrOlgOzw

The 600's color space defaults to sRGB, and there is the option of switching to Adobe. Which should I use? My understanding is that sRGB is inferior, but is adequate for the internet or cheap monitors. But I want to aim higher than that. So should I go Adobe, even if I can't currently see the difference?

To complicate matters, tone-mapping would surely be pulling in information that isn't visible normally? I'm only guessing there though.

Cheers!

I would think that sRGB would be your target since that's what we see when viewing on the Internet.

As far as what can or cannot be viewed in-range I would think you'd want to use a vectorscope for that determination, but then I know nothing about tone-mapping.

ziggy53

You can always use RAW capture to defer color space selection to post-processing. If you intend to publish/print in sRGB, it makes little sense to do any processing in Adobe-RGB, since you'll just be changing back later and clipping most of the benefit.

Unless you have an expanded gamut monitor, you should not trust what you see on a typical sRGB monitor for visual color adjustments unless you work in sRGB color space.

I tend to shoot all paying projects in RAW and then process in 16 bit sRGB color space. While Adobe RGB does have a "wider gamut", sRGB tends to have better distribution in those values relating to flesh tones. Likewise, if you process in Adobe RGB and then have to convert to sRGB for printing or Internet usage, any benefit that Adobe RGB might have provided is largely nullified in the conversion.

Most of the discussion relating to which is "absolutely" better is esoteric because, while the differences might be measurable, they are largely not visible (for a typical consumer workflow).

My recommendation is to use 16 bit sRGB as the workspace unless you are "publishing" the works using CMYK color seperation, then Adobe RGB might have an edge. (Saturated greens on an inkjet printer may also look better in Adobe RGB.) 16 bit tonal gradations are ultimately more important than either color space so make sure you save intermediate files as 16 bit PSD or 16 bit TIF/TIFF.

Also, it's important to save original RAW files for those images which might have to be processed diferently in the future. (Some color houses prefer to do their own processing and may internally use ProPhoto RGB, for instance. In that case they will use your images for guidance in tonality and for cropping, etc.)

In the mean time you might review:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html

DavidTO

I can't imagine it would make any discernible difference in a video whether you shot sRGB or aRGB. 16bit is a bit (heheh) of overkill as well. AFAIK most video is 10 bit at best. I think you have more important stuff to worry about.

Karel Bata

Sorry for the late reply. I'm not getting the reply notifications.

Sometimes my stuff gets shown on a cinema screen (more so in the future I hope!) which often means creating a DCP - very troublesome creatures! So far I've worked in YUV, and haven't noticed any degradation in quality, but why should I? But it would be nice if the colors suddenly 'popped' a bit more up there on the screen. I must ask around my film buddies bit more about this (but this is not area many of them know about) and do tests.

I'm actually doing my latest stuff in 3D, here's a quick example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOwVLGSBT00& (you'll probably see that in anaglyph, hence the red/cyan edges), so with 6 shots per frame x 25fps I'm already generating a mountain of data! Going to RAW, though desirable, would be prohibitive. I doubt the cards could write that fast anyway.

Karel Bata

Ziggy, I've had a closer look at those articles, and I think they answer my questions. The advice I'll go with is "use Adobe RGB 1998 if you normally work with 16-bit images, and sRGB if you normally work with 8-bit images. Even if you may not always use the extra colors, you never want to eliminate them as a possibility for those images which require them." Sounds good to me.