Re: PNG
Re: PNG
- Subject: Re: PNG
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:48:05 -0700
At 8:46 AM -0700 5/21/07, Michael Papet wrote:
> > Photoshop does the best it can given the current
>> interpretation of the PNG
>> "standard". But in between just about every release
>> somebody updates,
>> reinterprets, or points out why you can't even use
> > the standard definitions.
>
>
>
>2. Maybe Photoshop isn't the best tool for the job in
>this situation? Imagemagick
>(http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php) is an
>excellent tool for this kind of task with very good
>color control. A perl script does the grunt work.
It sounds like the underlying problem is an ill-defined or inconsistently implemented 'standard'.
Why would one implementation of the PNG spec be better than another? How would it change the overall problem?
Incidentally, who's in charge of it?
By the way, did the 16-bit Lab TIFF ever get nailed down? At least we know who to go to on that one. (Adobe)
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
________________________________________________________________________
--
_______________________________________________
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
| References: | |
| | >PNG (From: Michael Papet <email@hidden>) |