On 02/12/2010 05:36 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 02/12/2010 06:27 PM, Omari Stephens wrote:
>> On 02/12/2010 04:55 PM, yahvuu wrote:
>>> here are some diagrams depicting selected configurations for
>> I believe number 1 is incorrect:
>> All images in GIMP will have a color profile.
> People will want to create unmanaged images without a color profile for
> use on the web for example, so we need to handle images with no color
> profile attached. I think introducing the conepts of "implicit profiles"
> adds unnecessary complexity.
If the user with a weird monitor (wide-gamut, AdobeRGB, or other) has a
display profile and opens an image-without-profile, what do we display?
We can't apply the display profile unless the image has some source
color profile to link to the transform. Hence, we assume sRGB to enable
this and other situations to behave as correctly as possible. The sRGB
assumption is one what we already make, this change will simply make
that assumption a bit more explicit.
In doing so, it allows us to stop special-casing for cases where the
image may not have a color profile. We gain uniformity of display logic
and a decrease in code complexity by being able to assume the presence
of a color profile as an invariant.
And the code itself is trivial: just add a "give_me_color_profile"
function which returns icc-profile contents if present, or the sRGB
profile otherwise. (with a more-reasonable name, of course).
Gimp-developer mailing list