Hi Tobias,

 

For what it's worth, since I'm already set up to do testing, I just
altered testcms2.c to use the following definition for a Float
XYZA->XYZA test step, modeled after the Float XYZ->XYZ test step,
including the cmsFLAGS_COPY_ALPHA flag to cause the Alpha value to be
passed through, and it passed with flying colors.

 

    // XYZA to XYZA with preserve extra channels set

    input = IdentityMatrixProfile( cmsSigXYZData);

 

#   define TYPE_XYZA_FLT
(FLOAT_SH(1)|COLORSPACE_SH(PT_XYZ)|EXTRA_SH(1)|CHANNELS_SH(3)|BYTES_SH(4
))

    

    xform = cmsCreateTransform( input, TYPE_XYZA_FLT, xyzProfile,
TYPE_XYZA_FLT, INTENT_RELATIVE_COLORIMETRIC, cmsFLAGS_COPY_ALPHA);

    cmsCloseProfile(input);

 

    cmsDoTransform( xform, in, out, 1);

    

    

    cmsDeleteTransform( xform);

    

     if (!IsGoodVal("Float XYZA->XYZA", in[0], out[0], FLOAT_PRECISSION)
||

         !IsGoodVal("Float XYZA->XYZA", in[1], out[1], FLOAT_PRECISSION)
||

         !IsGoodVal("Float XYZA->XYZA", in[2], out[2], FLOAT_PRECISSION)
||

         !IsGoodVal("Float XYZA->XYZA", in[3], out[3],
FLOAT_PRECISSION))

           return 0;

 

This suggests that what you need works just fine.

 

However, I don't know why Marti might have removed that definition from
the list.  Perhaps back then, when there was no ability to copy alpha
values through (cmsFLAGS_COPY_ALPHA is a recent addition), it was deemed
unlikely to be needed.  Nothing keeps you from defining it yourself, as
I did above.

 

-Noel

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tobias Ellinghaus [mailto:m...@houz.org] 
Sent: Tue, August 1, 2017 8:55 AM
To: lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Lcms-user] Is TYPE_XYZA_FLT safe to use?

 

Sorry to bump this, but since the list came back to life recently I hope
that someone is able to answer this.

 

 

Am Dienstag, 30. Mai 2017, 12:16:48 CEST schrieb Tobias Ellinghaus:

> Hi,

> 

> just a quick question: I want to use TYPE_XYZA_FLT in my code which is
still

> mentioned in the recent API documentation. However, it seems that it
was

> removed from lcms2 in 2.4 rc2
(d00163e17de9399a77138d035104ff1786d89d1d).

> 

> Is there a reason not to use it? For the time being I can just #define
it

> myself the way it used to be done before, but maybe I am missing
something?

> 

> Tobias

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Lcms-user mailing list
Lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user

Reply via email to