RE: CIELAB as PCS
RE: CIELAB as PCS
- Subject: RE: CIELAB as PCS
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:55:31 -0800
Well, how's about using XYZ as a PCS for all profiles? ColorSync 1.0 used
XYZ for everything, I believe... I just interviewed Robin Myers (patent
holder for the original ColorSync) for the Colorhythm web site and he
mentioned this as one thing about the ICC spec he'd like to see changed.
I'll let everyone know when we post it. We're redesigning our site right
now...
-- Jeff
>
----------
>
From: email@hidden
>
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2001 2:45 PM
>
To: Harmon, Jeff; email@hidden
>
Subject: Re: CIELAB as PCS
>
>
At 3:02 PM -0800 11/8/01, email@hidden wrote:
>
>So, since everyone seems aware that CIELAB makes a less than optimal PCS,
>
>why aren't we changing it? Could individual software manufacturers employ
>
>any PCS they wish, or is using CIELAB part and parcel of the ICC spec?
>
What
>
>are the politics here?
>
>
>
>I know CIECAM97 is a ways away, but what are other candidates for a PCS?
>
>
>
>
In the ICC spec, LUT-based profiles must use D50 LAB as PCS, and
>
matrix profiles must use XYZ.
>
>
LAB has its warts, but it's not at all clear that there's a better
>
candidate waiting in the wings. Implementing CIECAM is going to be
>
quite, er, challenging...
>
>
Bruce
>
--
>
email@hidden