[etype2]

“ In the end, you have to ask yourself why go to all this effort. You can do it for your own gratification of viewing something on your wide-gamut monitor. You could perhaps share an image (in some format other than jpg) with someone else who has color-managed software and a calibrated and profiled wide-gamut monitor. But if your goal is to show pictures on the web to other TV restorers, the majority won't have all that, so the most reliable thing is still jpg and sRGB. If the viewer only has an sRGB monitor, that's the end of it.”

Understood. Thank you. I do not have Photoshop or Lightroom. I’ve read about Lightroom. I think we reached a point to invest in these products. I want to experiment more.

Slightly off topic soapbox rant: I’ve spent a reasonable amount of money investing in equipment to get us as close to the “theater experience” as possible. I like movies, the classics and new if properly produced to my liking. So with the high res, WCG, HDR, object based sound equipment in place, Hollywood keeps sending out “color” movies that in my opinion, barely pass as “two color” gamut. There has been a trend over recent years, to bring out overly dark, non saturated color movies and TV shows. You know the ones, I’m talking about. The Producers/Directors say its for the “mood” of the movie. That’s a cop out in my opinion. They talk about the black levels all the time. Maybe if the average Joe (my self :-) ) had a 200K Christie projector we might see and appreciate the content in these recent movies.

I want three strip Technicolor back! They could do it in the 30’s and beyond. Here we are in 2020 watching inferior color. There are exceptions, but far and few between. We seek out the exceptions. We read the history of color movies. First no television, competition from film makers, loss of audience to television, the need to attract folks back to the movies. I guess it all cones down to the $.