Bob Friesenhahn schrieb:
I am not familiar with Argyll's architecture (is there even an API?), but clearly a general-purpose solution like LCMS will be substantially slower than an implementation which is directly optimized for a single usage.
Bob,
it's basically a general purpose solution as well. It has a modular design and each module has it's interface, but not all of these APIs are really well documented. And somehow I miss API functions like LCMS' easy to use cmsCreateTransform() or a few others. Basically only one of Argyll's modules is responsible for the ultra-fast 8bpp device link transformations, and that's the IMDI module. I guess, it would be even possible to integrate this module into the LCMS library and hide it behind the LCMS API. (e.g. for 8bpp transformations, cmsCreateTransform() could create an IMDI device link object and attach it to the cmsHTRANSFORM object, and cmsDoTransform() could use the IMDI object to carry out the transformation).
A managed workflow may require a CMS transformation whenever an image is loaded (if the working space profile differs from the image's current profile), which would make image loading considerably slower. Likewise, if image display is CMS managed in software (vs hardware), displaying the image will be considerably slower.
Sure, if color management is desired and if a color conversion to working space is necessary, then image loading will be slower. But doesn't this apply to e.g. Photoshop as well? Image loading in PS with color coversion IS slower, but people accept this trade-off in order to get color management. I think the bigger problem is rather the performance for (color managed) real time displaying of images - people won't accept too slow screen refresh times for e.g. image manipulations, since they want to see what they are doing. And for some applications, e.g. video, I have doubts whether real time color management will be possible at all without hardware support.
When automated color management is introduced into open source applications, the impact on performance will be substantially greater than for proprietary applications like Photoshop.
I'm not sure. Why do you think so? Isn't this rather an issue of the design of these open source applications?
Best Regards, Gerhard
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
Lcms-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user
