RE: (no subject)
RE: (no subject)
- Subject: RE: (no subject)
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:54:13 +0200
Scott Olswold <email@hidden>
>basically: if the
>application can do its own color management, then it can be the master
of
>its own screen display, or: managed vs. non-managed.
The screen is a funny thing. If the screen redraw is not instantaneous,
we react. The more life-like the screen interface, the stronger we
react. The smooth anti-aliasing and soft translucence of the new UI are
more life-like than the simple stacking others use.
There is a long-standing concept that if all drawing commands were to
pass through a CMM, whether for productivity applications or for
publishing applications, then the OS platform would no longer be
practically useful.
Come to think of it, one of the original reasons for the LUT-based
approach of ColorSync 2 was speeed. If the CMM is able to load LUTs and
directly link a ColorWorld, this can be timed on older computers as
faster than if it calculates LUTs from matrix profiles before linking.
What was once a solution has lost its source issue as Macs have grown
faster.
The idea of disengaging from OS-level color management is as much a
reality as the idea of engaging OS-level color management throughout.
As users grow accustomed to seeing content in productivity applications
and publishing applications look alike, maybe those who still look for
the option to disengage will stop looking.
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.