On Tue, 25 May 2004, Gerhard Fuernkranz wrote:
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.
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
Argyll is GPL, which prevents its use for some situations. I am a bit concerned that it seems that Argyll is "experimental" software so releases may not occur very often. I like LCMS's license and support (this list).
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?
The reason why I think so is that since Photoshop's CMS is designed specifically for use in Photoshop there is no reason for performance to be lost due to generality. That means that parts of it may be coded in assembly language, and time spent marshalling data can be kept to a minimum.
Photoshop's CMS implementation has no need for a general purpose data-marshaller like LCMS provides.
Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
-------------------------------------------------------
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
