Re: CM through Quark
Re: CM through Quark
- Subject: Re: CM through Quark
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:08:26 -0700
Chris Murphy wrote:
rendering, but supposedly they've now defined the PCS gamut so it's not
totally ambiguous like in v2. That gamut mapping itself is still
Hmm. I must have missed that section. Can you point it out ?
I guess from a bird's eye view it's not totally unfair to call it broken,
but really it's an architectural issue. If it were fundamentally broken
none of this stuff would work at all and clearly it does work, just with
limitations that become increasingly apparent and problematic as time slips
into the future. We can't have dynamic gamut mapping in an architecture that
demands pre-computation of gamut mapping prior to knowing what the source space
(let alone what's in the image itself) and honoring those computations.
The complete lack of measurement data is also unfortunate.
You're absolutely right that it all works remarkably well, and even the lack
of source profile specific gamut mapping can be worked around if your prepared
to create a new destination profile for each source. I would be more pleased
if the ICC seemed to be addressing real issues (such as having a standard way
to record the TAC in the profile, a useful way of recording the gamut boundary,
an unambiguous definition of the relationship between absolute and relative
values, a standard spectral representation to record spot colors, colorants,
paper responses etc.), rather than messing about with things like re-defining
a perfectly good PCS encoding !
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
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.