I would suggest this one which is very clear and easy to understand :
Wow!!! Lightbulb moment!!! Finally, I now understand.
Many thanks for sharing this. I will need to watch it again (and again?) and experiment, and think about this - but I do feel I’m starting to get an understanding of this topic and how and why to use the PL features.
Great explanation + demonstration, why some saturated colours look better when converted from DxO Wide Gamut WCS instead from DxO Classic-Legacy WCS.
He is saying at 3:30 that the banding in his example is due to the compression of a wider color space into a smaller color space. The example is with a jpg. As far as I know banding is due to a to small bit depth when editing. sRGB in a jpg is 8 bit.
Banding appears when, in a given area of the image, colors that are initially different (but out of gamut) are replaced with a unique color. This may happen during various operations, including conversion to a smaller color space.
As explained in this thread, this is the reason why the higher accuracy of the calculations made in a wide working color space and a higher bit-depth are often decisive.
In this specific case there’s no out of gamut. The jpg is in sRGB and 8 bit. And a rather extreme editing is done. To me it’s a typical 8 bit problem.
Thank you for sharing.
I already had a good idea of how things works, but that is a simple but brilliant visual explanation
we have discussed this 10 months ago and there was a link to https://youtu.be/Hx-l7Avm8Bs?list=PLjZ7Y0kROWitoJtnw0pdvjPmS8mYGvrBR by James Ritson, also explaining why to work in wider color space.
Good start into the week by
These are the type of essential insights - for whatever reason - are not provided by DxO. It would avoid so much misunderstandings, confusion and useless discussions.
Actually, an in-depth book about Photolab would be welcome. But it seems that nobody is able to write it or that no editor is wanting to invest in such a project. Maybe Photolab is evolving too fast…
Affinity manages to produce masses of videos on its programs. Why DxO can’t do something like it on a much more limited number and range of programs is a pity especially as the “manuals” are not very good. There are as in this topic a number of very good presentations by others but its had to be users who are finding and point others to them not DxO. Given the long running discussions and clearly high level of confusion on the new colour space in v6 if they do actually read what’s here its even more appalling its been left to non DxO people to make it so much clearer. I will be the first to admit these videos have made me understand what it is and hopfully be able to use it now.
Actually a very good point. There must be some DXO engineers who could make a You Tube training video like James Ritson?
But about any software I use does not explain the basics of the business for which they are designed.
(Anyone who process digital images should know what a digital color is).
Anyway, happy to see that people understand that this new color space is really a major improvment for photolab and a must be for any serious demosaicer.
And it seems that the choice for this working color space is very clever and photography oriented : so good job on this for DxO team !!!
please tell us - what “digital color” is ?
No time for this.
But you have to understand color spaces, gamuts, bit depths, image formats, etc …
The fisherman drops the lour,
The fish decides an other time…
Extra : what’s analoge color? Any thing which is reflection , bounced of something, light?
CCD colors vs CMOS colors, tube ( amplifier ) sound , linear crystal-oxygen free copper wires for speakers, snake oil, …
A pedant would answer that ‘Light’ is usually taken to mean electromagnetic radiation to which the human eye is sensitive. Electromagnetic radiation is usually understood as a wave, i.e. a continuous / ‘analog’ stream but it’s equally valid to understand it as particles, discrete quanta known as photons, and thus all electromagnetic radiation is ‘digital’.