Re: Safari color management
Re: Safari color management
- Subject: Re: Safari color management
- From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:58:25 -0800
On Nov 4, 2004, at 11:46 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
on 11/4/04 12:28 PM, Roger Howard wrote:
I agree, there needs to be a consistent approach to color management.
I'm not positive that today "assuming" monitor profile is dumb; I
think
it's an unfortunate necessity, at least until *everything* is color
managed the same way.
It's totally dumb (sorry). This takes us back to Photoshop 4 days when
all
numbers were sent directly to the display. Everyone saw different
previews
from the same numbers. It's chaos. Instead we can now produce a
specific
flavor of RGB, make an assumption about it if untagged (sRGB) and
everyone
with a good display profile will see the same numbers the same way.
Assuming
monitor RGB ensures that everyone is working with a highly device
dependent
color space (their unique display) instead of a Quasi-Device
Independent
color space like sRGB.
Agreed. But it's not just images; it's HTML colored elements,
Quicktime
movies, Windows Media streams, Flash animations, and all the rest that
will *have* to be consistent rendered with the same color mgmt policy
as everything else.
Doable but let's start with images.
I disagree, but I've already said why about 10 times. In summary, it
has to happen together, or the Mac will look like an even worse
browsing platform than it is blamed for being now.
I disagree; if all we had on the Web today were JPEGs (and HTML had no
color elements itself) then this would be effective today.
Everything you see on a computer be it a JPEG or an HTML page is just
a big
pile of numbers. That's all computers understand. If you want color
from an
element (be it a whole bunch of colored pixels making up an image or a
solid
graphic), you've got to make some specific numbers. Numbers don't tell
us
what a color looks like without a descriptor. That's a profile. You can
assume all elements (groups of numbers) that have no descriptor is
sRGB and
if indeed the elements were made with that assumption, we'll all see
those
numbers correctly (the display calibration and profile play a role
here of
course).
Believe me, I understand how color is represented Andrew. And that's
why I hope my argument that *all* colors should be managed under the
same set of policies lets you know that I'm thinking about that; it's
possible, it's just not being promised right now - the performance
reason has been cited to me - and I'm simply arguing that I don't want
to see Web-based color get even worse before it gets better.
I'm not a fan of sRGB but the one thing it is good for is this lowest
common
dominator for assumed color of numbers.
100% agree.
Let's use it for what it's good for.
Agreed.
For those who simply have no idea about color management and display
profiling (the vast majority on a PC), sRGB isn't going to look too
bad.
Unless you're assuming sRGB for one set of untagged elements on a page
- JPEGs - but not for others, such as HTML/CSS colors, Quicktime, and
so on. Then, suddenly, designs breakdown, and explaining to users why
this is *better* than the seamless, yet unmanaged, color they see on
Windows is pretty much impossible.
Again, I'm not arguing against this notion of assuming sRGB for
untagged images; I'm arguing perhaps more than you for doing that, but
it has to be done consistently to all elements. If they can't, then the
best tact for now is to pass colors to the monitor untouched, as
happens now - at least then Web designers have a fighting chance.
Again, another reason why an OS that assumes a 2.2 gamma makes more
sense
then one that assumes 1.8.
100% agree. I think all Macs should be configured to 2.2 by default out
of the box, and Apple should do a mini PR blitz to comfort all the
designers and non-technical users who have been told for 15 years that
Macs are always 1.8.
-R
_______________________________________________
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