Graeme Gill wrote:
Currently I'm happy that Argyll's approach is at least consistent and functional.
I'm more that happy. Your work is great. IMO you also showed some of the commercial vendors which side one's bread is buttered on.
As for a standard gamut mapping algorithm, I hardly see that as desirable. Gamut mapping is very definitely still a research topic, and will almost certainly be one for many year to come. It's just not desirable to anoint one in a standard. This situation is hardly surprising, since gamut mapping is at least 50% art and taste, not science. Do you really want color management to be frozen at the state of the art 2005, rather than further improving ?
No, not at all! But then again, the graphic industry badly *needs* a standardized gamut mapping to sore and carry media independent data.
It would be far wiser I think, to settle on standards that don't depend on standardizing a gamut mapping algorithm for their interoperabillity.
... or to agree upon a provisional one. Have a nice day (or maybe night in Australia?) Klaus
