Re: Safari color management
Re: Safari color management
- Subject: Re: Safari color management
- From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:59:46 -0800
On Nov 4, 2004, at 10:16 AM, Roger Breton wrote:
I have not gone back testing the display of tagged images in Safari
vs
Photoshop. But I think you've answered my question : Safari's display
will
only match Photoshop's display WHEN the images are tagged. Otherwise,
Safari
must be (internally) reverting to some generic RGB profile. I don't
see any
other explanation.
Didn't John Zimmerer state that Safari was actually using OS level
color management?
Rich Apollo
Suppose it does. How do you interpret "OS level color management"?
John is
now with the guys in GrandRapids. Maybe John Gnaedy could clear the
confusion out? To me OS level color management is another term for
black
box. I seem to remember that the discussion with Chris and JZ hinges
on the
choice of 'generic RGB' as a suitable 'generic color profile' as
opposed to
sRGB. Everyone pitched its two cents but the thread was left as that.
This has been gone over before, and I'm sure Chris Murphy will chime in
at some point :)
Safari most definitely does respect embedded profiles; but since the
vast majority of images on the Web are not embedded or even tagged with
a color space, the real problem is how it handles these un-tagged
images. According to the W3C - and, dare I say, common sense - these
images should be assumed to be in sRGB. My understanding, and it's been
about 9 months since I've tested this, is that Safari in fact assumes
Monitor Space, which effectively means a null color transformation, so
the color is passed as-is.
The reason for this is, supposedly, performance - and I can buy that. I
also don't think it's nearly as obnoxious as it seems, since this is
effectively how things are handled in non color managed browsers - the
color is simply passed straight through, and rendered in monitor space
- which is important, since HTML colors and other color elements in the
browser are handled this way too (Flash, Quicktime usually, etc). The
problem really only becomes obvious when you try to use tagged images
alongside untagged images.
So I believe in some respects Safari is handling things simply and
correctly - tagged images are properly matched to the monitor, untagged
images get passed un-matched (basically, monitor space is assumed).
I think this is what you're seeing,
Roger
_______________________________________________
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