True. This is easy on exporting because you have time to wait for the full-size export to complete and then to downsize after, and if that takes 20 seconds, we can probably put up with that. However, the darkroom processes the image on-the-fly and in order to do that in a fairly fast interactive way it downscales the image first and then only processes the visible (downscaled) pixels. This doesn’t really impact overall exposure/contrast but it will impact any module that processes a pixel based on the properties of its neighbours (like sharpening and local contrast operations).
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. The halos are better (as in less bad)? Or you can see them more clearly? Maybe we’re talking cross-purposes
@gpagnon
I created a PR on github to add a pop-up window to have a convenient way to change the border width and ratio config variables, see screenshot:
Here is another update on my PR after some doubts by other contributors:
The mentioned standard (ISO12464) didn’t even exist, it was a typo and probably ISO12646 was meant. The author of the “colour assessment” feature wrote that he did not even have a copy of the referenced standard but got his main inspiration by a slidedeck of a presentation.
Another contributor - who has access to relevant ISO standards - checked them for references to this specific colour assessment schema, but couldn’t find any, so the actual measurements on how thick the grey and white frame should be are based on personal judgement and eye-balling.
In light of those findings the other contributors agreed on continuing with the effort on making the colour assessment conditions configurable with this pop-up window and getting rid of the ISO reference all-together to not cause more confusion about it.
The question was raised whether we want to still stick to the schema of having two values:
total border width (including grey and white part) as measured in cm
white border ratio
In my proposal I kept those two parameter, however I made the total border width relative to the screen size, which should scale well with different monitor sizes and physical resolutions (high DPI screens). I kept the 2 parameters because it is very convenient and fast to increase the white border width to quickly judge whether pictures are missing peak highlights (slight underexposured), this is way faster than switching to a bright / white theme. If the white border is too thin this might work well for judging overall colour and brightness balance, but not the highlights, IMHO.
Here is how the pop-up window looks like currently:
It was for prints not on screen but the prints were to be the same size and with a 9mm border so take any of that for what it might be worth…
I guess is ISO12646 which is D50 to match the pipeline and then I guess our display profile corrects to native or D65 however your monitor is set??
That iso is also the 80cd/m2 but some monitors are calibrated at 120 or even 160 in some cases… I have no idea if any of that impact the usefulness, probably not a lot I guess?
@da-phil I like all of your suggestions here. I presume once a user sets the width and ratios and it remains for future sessions. I personally currently use the frame module to put a white border around the image for assessment so your idea appeals to me. I doubt many if any users know what ISO126646 is anyway so it probably adds to confusion.
I presume once a user sets the width and ratios and it remains for future sessions.
Of course, these are config settings which are part of the darktablerc file, which was already discussed further up in the thread.
I doubt many if any users know what ISO126646 is anyway so it probably adds to confusion.
Yes, and for those who work in the media and print business who know those standards get confused as well, because they might have different expectations, except for only having a grey and white frame around the image.
