[argyllcms] Re: CC Profiles In X Specification and dispwin

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 19:08 +0100, Frédéric Crozat wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 6:54 PM, Leonard Evens <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >
> > I hesitate to chime in because I don't understand much about these
> > matters, but I hope to learn.
> >
> > First, let me say what I've been doing.  I created a display profile
> > using argyll, and I load it using xcalib.  But it definitely reverts
> > every time the screensaver comes up.
> 
> As wrote earlier, know bug, fix is pending integration now upstream :)
> 
> > Also, xprop -root | grep ICC
> > yields nothing.
> 
> This is normal, since you didn't use xicc to set a X atom with your profile.
> 
> And even if you used xicc, it wouldn't have changed anything : xicc is
> only designed
> to store in a standard way the profile part of a .icc/.icm file, not
> the calibration part. And gnome-screensaver bug was
> a calibration incorrect backup/restore issue.

I'm happy to have the screensaver bug fixed, and I will wait until
Fedora provides it in an update.  Meanwhile I can live with reloading
it.

I clearly still don't understand some things, so please be patient with
me.  Just what is the distinction between the calibration" and
"profile".   I looked at my profile with iccdump, and it contains a
whole lot of information with the last three tags being rTRC, gTRC, and
bTRC.  I've been assuming these are loaded in the Xserver as look up
tables.  I even tried to decipher the code in xcalib and other programs,
so I think I understand how it is done.   Which part of the profile
would be loaded with xicc?

I thought calibration referred to changes made to the monitor using the
monitor controls.  Is that wrong?

I am also still very confused about how an application like eog or gimp
2.4 is supposed to make use of this information.  For example, in the
gimp preferences, I have several choices.  I can specify a display
profile, but I don't understand whether or not I should be using it if I
use xcalib.  Would the luts be used twice in that case?  I've been
trying to resolve these issues by experimentation, but that hasn't yet
been very helpful since the changes with different arrangements are not
very large.

>

Other related posts: