Re: Camera profiling with ICC et al
Re: Camera profiling with ICC et al
- Subject: Re: Camera profiling with ICC et al
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:52:55 EDT
Graeme,
I am completely with you on this one, in principle. I do not wish to be an
apologist for the ICC, in fact, within the ICC, I am one of its biggest critics
(constructively I hope). I am just giving you the facts as best I know them
without being pejorative. But the simple fact is, that for good reason,
developers were and are even now putting output-referred colorimetry in the CRI,
especially for camera profiles. Rather than bury its head in the sand, the ICC
acknowledged this fact. But that was not enough. That is why I pushed so hard for
the image state tag. When this tag is set, now you know unequivocally whats in
the CRI. For the first time, this provides the bedrock you are looking for
(and thought you had previously but didn't really.) Now you can indeed begin to
verify the CRI of an arbitrary if a scene referred image state tag is set.
Before, you could only do that if you knew apriori how the CRI was built.
Eric Walowit
Tahoe
In a message dated 9/16/08 2:52:28 AM,
email@hidden writes:
> The result of now allowing rendering changes to the colorimetric
> model is that (since such rendering is vendor and situation specific),
> the profiles cannot be independently verified, nor accurately re-purposed.
> I can readily sympathize with the camp (WCS) that ditched the ICC profile
> format, and started again with a firmer, instrument measurement base.
>
>
**************
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
_______________________________________________
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