yahvuu wrote:
> Graeme Gill wrote:
>> The bottom line is that it depends on your purpose. If you
>> have a particular reason to specify device dependent colors,
>> then you deliberately don't want to tag the file with a profile.
>
> This case worries me a bit. Hope you can enlighten me what the be
Omari Stephens wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 02:41 PM, yahvuu wrote:
>> But how to avoid the overhead when such files are to be archieved?
>> After all, URLs tend to throw 404s after a while.
>> Just rely on the compression feature of the backup software?
>
> I think the answer is easy: provide a way to
On 03/13/2010 02:41 PM, yahvuu wrote:
> Graeme Gill wrote:
>> The bottom line is that it depends on your purpose. If you
>> have a particular reason to specify device dependent colors,
>> then you deliberately don't want to tag the file with a profile.
>
> This case worries me a bit. Hope you can e
Graeme Gill wrote:
> The bottom line is that it depends on your purpose. If you
> have a particular reason to specify device dependent colors,
> then you deliberately don't want to tag the file with a profile.
This case worries me a bit. Hope you can enlighten me what the best practices
are.
In
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Alexia Death wrote:
> Problem is not serving different content. Problem is making content
> that works for those, and ultimately for all browsers. So your
> suggestion misses the point. The point is need to create images that
> are not color managed or rather are
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Jay Smith wrote:
> You are going to hate this suggestion, but as long as certain browsers
> are causing you a problem, you may have to do "browser sniffing" and
> serve those users different content. In other words, different image
> files get called for different
On 03/10/2010 09:40 AM, Jason Simanek wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:37 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
>> Some file formats, such as PNG for example, allow to tag the file to be
>> in a particular well-known color space. The color profile is not
>> embedded then, it is assumed to be well-defined. Instead of di
On 03/10/2010 02:37 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Some file formats, such as PNG for example, allow to tag the file to be
> in a particular well-known color space. The color profile is not
> embedded then, it is assumed to be well-defined. Instead of distributing
> the profile with the image file, the
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 09:14 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > - And do the words "embedding" or "assigning" or "tagging" mean the same
> > thing in this context?
>
> No, but that should have become evident already.
Let me try to define the terms nevertheless. Perhaps that helps to clear
up some of
Hi,
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 22:22 -0500, Jay Smith wrote:
> ... So what I want to understand is .
>
> - In Gimp, I understand that an image without an embedded color space is
> treated as if it had an embedded sRGB color space.
Not completely. It is assumed to be in sRGB. That
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 16:36 +1100, Graeme Gill wrote:
[...]
> Hmm. I'm not sure that 3k for an image is really that significant
> given the bloat and slowdown on typical websites
Some people (including me) go to quite a bit of trouble to make the
initial Web page load as quickly as possible. It ma
Jay Smith wrote:
> In various places (not necessarily in this thread) there is discussion
> of "embedding profiles" and "tagging with color space". It is NOT clear
> to me if these are two phrases with the same meaning.
In general they are the same thing. Some people have schemes
to tag a file wi
I am still trying to get my head around this subject / thread.
In various places (not necessarily in this thread) there is discussion
of "embedding profiles" and "tagging with color space". It is NOT clear
to me if these are two phrases with the same meaning.
As I recall, the OP brought this ove
Omari Stephens wrote:
> Basically, lcms generates an RGB profile with the sRGB primaries,
> transfer functions (aka "gamma curve"), and whitepoint; for the curious,
> this happens in cmsCreate_sRGBProfile() in cmsvirt.c . For one, I'm not
> sure if this is all there is to a "real" sRGB profile
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:52 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Since the in-memory representation you get from cmsCreate_sRGBProfile()
> has the same MD5 sum as an sRGB profile opened from disk, it appears
> that it should be sufficient to use g_file_set_contents() to write it to
> disk (if that is need
Hi,
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 05:53 +, Omari Stephens wrote:
> So, you're right; I had dismissed this possibility out-of-hand without
> investigating sufficiently. Having poked around the lcms code a bit, I
> don't think this option is feasible.
>
> Basically, lcms generates an RGB profile wi
On 03/06/2010 12:58 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:34 +, Omari Stephens wrote:
>
>> Finally, to respond to your question on the bug, we need some way to
>> embed an actual sRGB profile into an image.
>
> Can't we just embed the lcms built-in sRGB profile? That sounds
Hi,
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:34 +, Omari Stephens wrote:
> Finally, to respond to your question on the bug, we need some way to
> embed an actual sRGB profile into an image.
Can't we just embed the lcms built-in sRGB profile? That sounds like a
totally straight-forward solution. But I might
On 03/04/2010 09:01 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:49 +, Omari Stephens wrote:
>> Hi, all. I just finished v1 of the patch to add the sRGB ICCv2 profiles
>> to the GIMP distribution. They're 3kB each, so size shouldn't be an
>> issue. The main question is one of licensing
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:49 +, Omari Stephens wrote:
> Hi, all. I just finished v1 of the patch to add the sRGB ICCv2 profiles
> to the GIMP distribution. They're 3kB each, so size shouldn't be an
> issue. The main question is one of licensing. I believe the license
> allows us to distri
Omari Stephens wrote:
> Hi, all. I just finished v1 of the patch to add the sRGB ICCv2 profiles
> to the GIMP distribution. They're 3kB each, so size shouldn't be an
> issue. The main question is one of licensing. I believe the license
> allows us to distribute the profiles, but IANAL.
As I
Hi, all. I just finished v1 of the patch to add the sRGB ICCv2 profiles
to the GIMP distribution. They're 3kB each, so size shouldn't be an
issue. The main question is one of licensing. I believe the license
allows us to distribute the profiles, but IANAL.
I'd appreciate if someone who eit
22 matches
Mail list logo
