In a message dated 1/22/06 11:57:52 AM, email@hidden writes:
My thinking too. We'll see what Peter McLeod from Adobe has to say. I don't
pretend I understand everything about CIECAM but I think it's a positive
development. The ICC crowd surely has some CIECAM proponents in its ranks
but, as a whole, I suspect they have other priorities, in the short term.
As I understand it, Canon presented their materials to the ICC first, and the ICC decided not to adopt it. So Canon shopped it around a bit, and found Microsoft was interested. What that means at this point is that there will be no open-standards method to institute the same features without tripping over rights that vest in Canon/Microsoft, so that, short of licensing from Microsoft (perhaps not a palatable idea for Apple) there is no way to institute a truely compatible solution for the advanced features at the OS level on the Mac.
Other, similar, solutions would certainly be possible, but the level of cross compatibility currently available with ICC profiles would almost surely be unavailable. This would also be true of Linux, Windows 2000, and Windows XP, none of which would have the necessary core to deal with anything but the ICC-based components of the WCS materials, if that. However, its not at all clear how critical it is that such functions occur at the OS level, versus the application level, in, for example, Adobe applications. The only color management functions that most user-workflows currently run at the OS level is selection and application of the monitor profile; and that simply in an attempt to be as broadly compatible and non-conflicting as possible.
C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden