Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
- From: Chris Cox <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:29:53 -0700
- Thread-topic: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
1) and 2) are both documented in the DNG FAQ.
The data models of DNG profiles and ICC profiles are close, but DNG profiles
provide additional information, plus specification of the processing order
that is missing in standard ICC profiles.
Since our format and data are public, we can't claim to have technology
better than the rest of the business -- now everyone can copy what we do.
Chris
PS. Yes, I still hate calling them DNG profiles.
On 9/8/08 7:15 PM, "edmund ronald" <email@hidden> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> With the greatest courtesy -
>
> 1. I see no reason why Adobe couldn't have used 2 ICC profiles and
> interpolated between them exactly like they do with the matrices.
> 2. I see no reason either the ICC or Adobe method should be
> inherently "better".
>
> Admitting the models are basically equivalent -if you assume you use twins-
> then
> the real problem is how one determines the coeficients to get from raw
> to color. Determining those coeficients is experimental technique and
> algorithms. And there, I have so far seen no demonstration that you
> have better color science or optimization technology than the rest of
> us in this business.
>
> Edmund
_______________________________________________
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