[argyllcms] Re: Argyll v4 compliance and 10bitsupport
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:53:05 +1100
Andrés Vattuone wrote:
> I am interested in v4 display profiling, so lcms is of no use, as far as I
> know. The following document seems to suggest that v4 profiles are better
> than v2 profiles
>
> http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_6_v2_and_v4_display_profile_differences.pdf
>
> If this was the case, it would be nice to have v4 profiling in Argyll, at
> least for displays.
As I said, I see no compelling technical reason to support V4 profiles.
The one thing that an addendum to V4 introduces that seems to have
some merit is the PRMG, but the PRMG can be used with V2 profiles
just as easily as V4. In fact Argyll uses a superior (from a resulting
quality point of view) approach to applying gamut mapping, by
targeting the actual source gamut rather than the intermediate
PRMG with all the disadvantages that that entails (double gamut mapping,
always saturation intent etc.)
Yes, after making many (often gratuitous) changes to the spec., the ICC
have a reason to promote it :- to justify the changes! :-)
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
