Re: scanback profiling question
Re: scanback profiling question
- Subject: Re: scanback profiling question
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:58:15 -0700
At 11:44 PM -0400 4/22/03, tom vanderlinden wrote:
good evening - - -
Here is a quote I saved from Bruce Fraser,
which he posted 4-5Aug01 to the ColorSync list,
which seem to address the question:
After we apply the camera profile to the Betterlight capture, when we
go to a
working space in Photoshop, we generally do this with the Perceptual
intent.
Is it really applying perceptual or is it a tag to the relative intent?
I'm still wondering which profilers are correctly using the
tables/tags.
The quote is:
Conversions to working space are always RelCol or AbsCol.
The rendering intent is always dictated by the target profile
the conversion from source to PCS is always RelCol
(unless you ask for Absolute Colorimetric)
and while working space profiles may say they have a perceptual intent,
they dont. If you choose Perceptual (or Saturation, for that matter)
youll get exactly the same result as you do when you choose RelCol
try it and see
Is this still true today?
No. (It was true when I wrote it.)
If you have a LUT-based input profile, the input>PCS part of the
conversion gets built using the specified rendering intent. The
PCS>working space part of the conversion uses relcol unless the user
requests abscol, because the working space profiles are matrix
profiles, and matrix profiles contain only one rendering intent. In
theory, you can build matrix profiles using any rendering intent, but
the Photoshop WS profiles are all relcol.
Bruce
--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.