[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Legal RGB



On Feb 19, 17:13, Bob Festa wrote:
} Subject: Legal RGB

} At 09:23 PM 2/18/97 -0800, sflippi9 at IDT.NET wrote:
} > If a spot is leaving Xfer and moving on
} >to say Flame, is the colorist trying to conform to RGB legal limits. If
} >we could have a small poll to see how people are approaching this
} >portion of our ever increasingly complex world, 
} 
} Once bitten...twice running with daVinci legal color limiting enabled.
} 
} Actually, after a while you get used to working in a color space thats 30%
} smaller. 

One may get used to it without liking it... in many sessions, the most
unfriendly chroma transitions in hottest whites that result from
running legal limiting cause me to rethink my color approach entirely.
I think I'm even tending now toward the more neutral balance in
general, because I dislike so much having the whites devoid of chroma
when that differs from a tone applied across the greyscale.  Most
unnatural-looking and inorganic in some situations.

} There is a certain zen and simplicity to minimalist saturation.

ah yes, and what we do for the clients in perceived added value is how
they separate the good colorist from the also-ran.

--Rob

-- 
Rob Lingelbach   rob at alegria.com  rob at info.com  rob at phxmedia.com 
rob at spyderweb.net  rob_lingelbach at popstudios.com  rob at bongo.tele.com
rob at cloister.org  rob at aaton.com  rob at xyzoom.info.com  rob at sun.alegria.com  
rob at praia.alegria.com  rob at www.alegria.com