Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit profiling -- does anyone gives a hoot?
Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit profiling -- does anyone gives a hoot?
- Subject: Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit profiling -- does anyone gives a hoot?
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:34:21 -0400
> Sounds unlikely.
Well, I'm trying to trace some conversions here to post the results for
discussion but the preliminary calculations I am getting are showing a shift
in the b value from 12 to 14, in a skintone valued at 89,9,12.
> I understand that Photoshops color conversion routines
> were implemented with a careful eye towards precision.
So I heard, that ACE is internally implemented as 16 bit.
> Also don't
> assume that because the ICC profile is 8 bit, that the transformation
> created from the profile somehow is going to be 8 bit.
You mean ACE could interpolate the LUTs in 16-bit instead of 8 bit?
> Some CMMs
> may be implemented that way, but there is no compunction to do so.
OK.
> In icclib for instance, the ICC profile is regarded as a storage
> format, and all the encoded parameters are converted to floating point
> for the use of the actual color transformation routines.
Gotta back to icclib for further testing of my theory, I guess. But the
problem I'm seeing is that InDesign, Illustrator and maybe Photoshop too (I
stand corrected) are all using 8-bit conversions. In that context, I wonder
what the value of using "Large" or 16-bit profiles in the first place? When
everything will be dumbed down to 8 bit with the possible artifacts I
discussed above. Does an 8 bit profile by design offers less grid points?
Will result in the the CMM doing larger interpolations?
> Graeme Gill.
Regards,
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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