[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:43 , Graeme Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:
I don't accept that. The spec. was ambiguous, but certain very widely
[Snip]
Nor me. Is for that reason I'm keeping backwards compatibilty by
undoing chromatic adaptation for such profiles. This introduces
an extra level of complexity (i.e., display profiles are handled separately)
but I think that is what an average user would expect.
How do you actually intend to distinguish and handle the two different
kinds of V2 profiles?
1. the V2 profiles which behave like the sRGB 1998 profile,
2. the V2 profiles which behave "as it was ever intended
by the ICC" (i.e. with wtpt tag adapted to PCS illuminant)
And what about V2 profiles with "chad" tag (introduced with profile
version 2.4)? Is it safe to generally assume, that they behave like V4
ones? For instance, what about the new 2004 srGB profiles (which have a
"chad" tag, though the header actually sais profile version 2.0)?
Regards,
Gerhard
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Lcms-user mailing list
Lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user
