[argyllcms] Re: Support of v4 device link profile in cctiff


Roger Breton wrote:

I encoutered a situation where support of v4 device link profiles are not
supported by cctiff. Are these v4 DLPs very different from v2 DLPs? I was
tempted to modify the header to force cctiff to honor a v4 DLP but I shied
away from it.


Gerhard Fuernkranz wrote:

The most relevant difference is probably that V4 offers new LUT types,
which a V4 profile may use, but which are not understood by a V2 CMM.


There's little or no advantage in v4 device link profiles technically,
so the most compatible thing to do is to generate v2 profiles.

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: