Add ISO12464 color assessment conditions pop-up window in darkroom #18433
Conversation
da-phil
force-pushed
the
add_iso12464_popup_window_in_darkroom
branch
from
7652689 to
4574985
Compare
| @@ -329,7 +329,10 @@ typedef struct dt_develop_t | |||
| // ISO 12646-compliant colour assessment conditions | |||
| struct | |||
| { | |||
| GtkWidget *button; // yes, ugliness is the norm. what did you expect ? | |||
| GtkWidget *floating_window, *button; // yes, ugliness is the norm. what did you expect ? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really like the comment here :D
da-phil
force-pushed
the
add_iso12464_popup_window_in_darkroom
branch
from
4574985 to
46b356b
Compare
|
AFAIK there are good reasons for the widths and colours being what they are in this mode and it's supposed to be a technical thing that improves your ability to adjust the contrast/brightness consistently. Putting the setting in darktablerc is us saying "we strongly believe you should leave these settings alone". Honestly I'd prefer the setting wasn't available for adjustment at all, but I can see there might be some screen-specific reasons that it doesn't display as expected. So, if you really need it and you know enough, you can change it. If we make the adjustment of it so easy that it is presented up-front in the UI this is really us saying to the user "these values aren't important - this is just a UI look-and-feel thing and you should set it to what you find aesthetically pleasing." While we do allow some border widths to be set in the darkroom in general (and we could consider allowing these to be adjusted more), IMO the colour assessment mode is special and should not be easy to change. |
da-phil
force-pushed
the
add_iso12464_popup_window_in_darkroom
branch
3 times, most recently
from
7f0b605 to
93dfc69
Compare
TurboGit
added
the
controversial
|
I'm not sure we want to do that. The color assessment mode is normalized ISO12464, having control on it would just break the normalized values. |
|
I fully agree with @elstoc and @TurboGit here. I understand that people on small notebooks think the borders are too wide but that width is simply required as our vision system works that way so it it became a standard defining a minimum border absolute width. Museums for example request that for good reasons as they also request a minimum monitor size. |
|
I have to say I disagree with you there. This is very useful for many people (myself included) who often work with smaller screens. I can understand the defaults are defined as they are for a reason, however on smaller devices would it not be better to have a usable, albeit 'incorrect'/worse colour assessment mode? Putting these settings in the preferences dialog was what I initially suggested, and along with perhaps a dropdown or a clear warning message I would argue provides plenty of 'don't fuck with this unless you need to' feedback to the user. This pop-up window solution only came about because the preferences dialog was deemed too cluttered. As a compromise, perhaps having a little warning note appear when you open this popup dialog, or simply hiding these settings on larger monitors could be done? |
I don't know how many of these parameters are part of the standard, but if we're going to reference a specific ISO number and define an assessment mode as adhering to this standard, then it should either do so, or we should not include the ISO reference number. |
Currently the following parameters are hidden in the darktablerc file * darkroom/ui/iso12464_border * darkroom/ui/iso12464_ratio Therefore it's hard to dial them in, in order to tune the iso12464 assessment borders. This change adds a pop-up window, which opens up upon right-clicking on the "iso12464 color assessment conditions" button similarly to the overexposure warning pop-up window configuration dialog.
|
By the way, does anybody have access to that very ISO standard? Would be very interesting to find out whether it gives very explicit guidance as to how wide the white and neutral grey borders need to be for "optimal" color assessment conditions or even the parameterization dt uses (total border width + white fraction).
If you look at my post at pixls.us you will notice that the white & grey frame width changes with the amount of scaling on a high DPI monitor. Overall it gives inconsistent results and sticking to some arbitrarily appearing preset, which I don't believe is specified exactly in that very ISO standard feels a little bit surprising.
If that is a compromise both parties could live with, I'd be more than happy to drop the ISO reference ;) |
da-phil
force-pushed
the
add_iso12464_popup_window_in_darkroom
branch
from
93dfc69 to
1103187
Compare
As you might have guessed, that was not really a serious suggestion. By all means let's identify whatever challenges there are in making this work consistently across screen sizes but making it completely free-form basically does away with the whole point of the mode being there in the first place.
Yes, this. |
|
I could not find open access to that iso standard when I implemented the fixed minimum border sizes which was later changed to be somewhat user-adjustable on user request. But I found recommendations from history imaging museums citating it and explaining how our visual system works. It was one inch each grey/white. Can't find that right now. |
|
Apparently also AP didn't have access to the ISO standard when he implemented the feature, see his feature-request back then: #3686 (PR with the feature is linked as well) So apparently everything is just "eyeballed", not hard numbers from the mentioned standard.
At least this would contradict the current default setting of 4 cm total border width (grey + white) and the 0.4 fraction for the white part. How would you calculate those absolute metric numbers for a screen anyway, if there is no way to determine its pixel-pitch (or pixel-per-inch) property. IMHO relative quantities should work much better. Would be interested in your source from history imaging museums. |
Right, that was changed as too many people complained.
Me too. Tried to find is last night but without success. :-( |
|
I have access to everything on BSOL. Ping me an email. |
Add ISO12464 color assessment conditions pop-up window in darkroom bottom panel, see screenshot:
Currently the following config options are hidden in the darktablerc file
Therefore it's hard to dial them in, in order to tune the iso12464 assessment borders.
This change adds a pop-up window, which opens up upon right-clicking on the "iso12464 color assessment conditions" button similarly to the overexposure warning pop-up window configuration dialog.
This address the following requests to make those config variables easier to change:
Fixes: #17278