Re: The need for a substantial upgrade of ColorSync
Re: The need for a substantial upgrade of ColorSync
- Subject: Re: The need for a substantial upgrade of ColorSync
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:40:41 -0700
At 12:12 PM -0700 4/5/10, Marco Ugolini wrote:
>In a message dated 4/4/10 11:25 PM, Steve Upton wrote:
>
>> - advanced color processing - As Apple has chosen ColorSync to be an
>> implementation of ICC technology I don't think there's much to be done in
>> ColorSync unless they depart from the ICC architecture. In other words, I
>> think that the logical place for advanced work to occur is at the ICC.
>
>Hi Steve.
>
>Does this mean that both "smart" CMMs and CIECAM workflows (the 2 main
>elements in my "wish list") could conceivably be implemented without having
>to update the core structure of the ColorSync architecture within the Mac
>OS?
Well, I don't think so. In fact, I think the opposite. In order to implement a smart CMM and direct-control CIECAM workflow the CMM needs to be built around an architecture. The architecture is based on the ICC so change needs to occur there first.
That said, a fair amount of indirect-control CIECAM can be (and is) implemented outside of the CMM and inside the building process of modern day ICC profiles. The oft-maligned Lab PCS is really just a connection space and color wizardry can be performed in the profiles that use it. There are limitations to todays PCS (HDR being one of the first that comes to mind) but I don't think it's as limiting as it is often made out to be.
At 12:32 PM -0700 4/5/10, Michael Papet wrote:
>Steve Upton: There's lots that could be done at Apple. CMS is not a top-line money-maker that also has licensing costs. With two strikes against it and no visibility beyond a *small* print customer group, it languishes.
In light of Nathan's great post, I have to agree. In order to maintain identical cross platform behavior in our products we adopted LCMS years ago and so I am not viewing ColorSync from such a developer's perspective very often. It does indeed sound like Apple has some significant updating to do.
I suppose one of the benefits of relentless OS and hardware upgrades is that Apple is forced to eat its own dog food now and again. Perhaps we can view the sometimes limited & problematic ColorSync support in Apple's own applications as a barometer of the development ease of ColorSync. It's a perspective I haven't considered before.
Also, I tend to believe that blaming the front-line people at Apple like John Gnaegy is a simplistic view. Apple is a large, complicated company and the support for ColorSync that we need is undoubtedly required at several levels above John. The fact that we continue to see postings from our list mom is a sign that we not being completely ignored. If there's any insight into where we might direct our concerns (likely off list), I'd be happy to know.
The more successful Apple becomes, the bigger Apple becomes. The bigger Apple becomes, the more we become a niche market for Apple. I see this as a natural evolution for any company and I'm very happy that Apple is enjoying such success (the alternatives are quite unappealing). So lists like this and bitching and complaining like the root of this thread are essential to our continued success.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
________________________________________________________________________
--
_______________________________________________
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