On 03/03/2014 12:54 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On 2014-03-03 [email protected] wrote: > >> I understand the licencing issue, but it would be great >> if the oss tools would agree on one version of sRGB.
It would be nice if they all would agree on one version of sRGB, as long as it was the right version! But they don't. They also don't agree on the right version of ProPhoto, WideGamut, or any other ICC profile: http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/linux-icc-profiles.html http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/are-your-working-space-profiles-well-behaved.html They used to agree on what the AdobeRGB1998 profile was supposed to be, but even for that profile some diversity is creeping in. > > I agree, it makes darktable>gimp workflows a little bit annoying. > It seems like hugin might be a little confused by the profile name, > too, although it doesn't appear to cause problems. The profile file name isn't actually part of the ICC profile, so that information isn't embedded in an image when you embed the ICC profile. The description tag (and model tag and so on) carries verbally identifying information. > I'm wondering if using 'darktable' in the name may cause > other tools in the chain (some of which, as with websites, are beyond user > control) > may cause unnecessary "conversion" to another sRGB in many cases. The CMM (color management module, LittleCMS for all? open source and many proprietary programs) doesn't pay attention to the profile description tag. It should only pay attention to the functional parts of the embedded ICC profile (for matrix profiles, the primaries and white point or chad tag, plus the profile default conversion intent if the user doesn't specify a conversion intent). I don't know what heuristic LCMS uses for deciding if one profile is the same as another. > Do the licensing issues actually require the > profile name field to be called something other than just 'sRGB'? Adobe is very precise on what they allow with AdobeRGB1998. It must indicate that the profile in question isn't the exact same profile distributed by Adobe. ArgyllCMS uses the profile file name "ClayRGB1998" and the profile description "Compatible with Adobe RGB (1998)". RawTherapee uses "Large" and "Medium" as part of the file names for ProPhoto and Adobe profiles. I haven't ever found any documentation stating one way or another whether there are legal restrictions on the use of ProPhoto, WideGamut, etc file names and descriptions. Does anyone have any such documentation? It would be nice, given the growing number of variants of the various working spaces available from open source software, if profile description tags (and file names) included information like "Darktable built-in sRGB" or "Darktable built-in linear gamma sRGB" or even "Darktable 4.1 built-in linear gamma sRGB". That way, if the software embeds some strange version of a standard RGB working space, the user might have a chance to track down the culprit! Cheers, Elle Stone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
