Re: Color management in web browsers, was: Printing with No Color Management (again)
Re: Color management in web browsers, was: Printing with No Color Management (again)
- Subject: Re: Color management in web browsers, was: Printing with No Color Management (again)
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:44:25 -0600
On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:45 AM, René Damkot wrote:
> On 29-04-11 19:22, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I don't agree. I understand why they are honoring embedded profiles only. If Apple were to go it alone, and went full color management there would be a complete disconnect instantly for all Safari users compared to the remaining 90% of the planet that does not user Safari. Any solution needs to be coordinated or it makes the problem of color on the internet worse by making it more fractured.
>>
>>
> How would it cause a "disconnect"? (Not trying to be a wise-ass, but I'm genuinely surprised)
Color on the internet right now is in effect "Monitor RGB" - there's no display compensation occurring at all. If one browser starts doing it, it doesn't really matter if it's "correct" it will be different from the vast majority of user experience out there.
>
> Safari *now* causes a "disconnect", since it's displaying backgrounds different from images with a profile. (a good reason not to embed a profile in images that need to match a background). Same for Firefox3.6 / 4 at default. (together roughly 35% market share AFAIK)
This is not a web browser problem, it's an OS problem. Safari, Firefox, and I think also IE9 behave the same way, by honoring an embedded profile as source.
However, IE 9 is entirely on Windows, the vast majority of workstations set the display profile to sRGB on Windows (which is the default). Thus null transform for everything, thus in effect it's Monitor RGB. Same for Safari and Firefox on Windows.
> If *only parts of the website* look wrong (Safari or FF at default), that is an issue I'd say.
I agree it's a bit of a clusterf*ck but I understand why it is the way it is. I'm sorta defending it by saying this, but I recognize it's not ideal. But to improve the situation either requires a substantial regression, or substantial advancement.
Suffice to say, very very little content on the internet is tagged. Therefore most users aren't experiencing this split personality behavior.
>
> Best would be to assume sRGB for untagged "whatever", including flash and other plugin content I'd say.
Yes but this is either not enabled in plugins, or in the case of Flash, it isn't the default behavior, nor is it presently possible for the browser to trigger the behavior which is really what should happen.
> Or no color management whatsoever and hope your audience doesn't have a wide gamut screen.
Display divergence from sRGB isn't just about wide gamut displays. Smaller gamut displays are even more common as they are represented by pretty much all mobile devices and laptops.
>
> I know what I'd choose. That's why I use FF4 with full color management enabled ;)
FF3.6.x somewhere, and FF4, when Mozilla went to qcms, dropped support for ICC v4 profiles. So that's a small problem for full color management being enabled depending on how the display profile is formed (ICC v2 with an ICC v4 header, or taking advantage of only ICC v4 structures).
Chris Murphy _______________________________________________
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