Hi, On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Kevin Wheatley < > kevin.j.wheat...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Hmm... So, the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCI-P3 > >> > refers > >> > to the two whitepoints here as DCI-P3 D65 and DCI-P3 Theater. Calling > >> > one > >> > D65 and the other DCI seems confusing in that light (assuming the > >> > wikipedia > >> > page is correct). I'd call it THEATER or DCI_P3_THEATER, to > distinguish > >> > it > >> > from DCI-P3 D65. Is that OK? > >> > >> In the industry people just call it the DCI P3 white point (or 'Urgh') > >> it is not limited to theater usage, you might consider it the > >> calibration white point for the reference projector, so > >> WP_DCI_P3_REFERENCE might be better, but that is a little long. > >> > >> I'd go for something like WP_DCI_P3 it is not really ambiguous. > > > > > > Hm... OK with me (though not ideal, but what do I know). Vittorio, OK > also? > > I can modify patch so you don't have to resend. > > I find it a little long and not less confusing than my initial WP_DCI, > among all the alternatives I liked the THEATER one the most. If that's > a no-go, how about we could settle for WP_PROJ maybe? Wait, wait. Length is an issue? Really? The only reason the other names are short is because the names of the whitepoints are short. D65 is really just called that: D65. Likewise for D50. This name (whatever it is :D) is simply longer. Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
