why device independent color?
isw wrote:
In article , Martin Brown wrote: On 24/01/2014 23:47, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:13:47 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Dale wrote: what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each device along the way having a profile. that's how you get the profiles no, you get the profiles by running the appropriate profiling software. what the software does internally doesn't matter. users do not need to understand all the math behind it to be able to use it. what matters is does the user get what they expect, and the answer is yes. You are missing the point of Dale's original comment: "you need to convert the device colors through device independent color space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV". But that is clearly not true! It is a lot more convenient to convert to a device independent colour space and from there to whatever output medium you want to use because the number of profiles need for N different image sources and M destinations is limited to N+M colour profiles. But you could with a *lot* more work compute direct colour profiles for every possible combination of source and destination N*M. In the early days when N was about 3 and M was about 4 that was what happened. It may still make a lot more sense to store the original image in the colour space where it was measured and only ever compute the device independent form as a hidden step on the way to the output device. What do you do years later, when all information about the creating device's characteristics are long gone, and all you have is an image file? You know about embedded profiles, right? BugBear |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com