[argyllcms] Re: stupid question
- From: David Garabana Barro <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:28:02 +0100
O Sábado, 23 de Outubro de 2010, Hal V. Engel escribiu:
> On Friday, October 22, 2010 04:40:44 pm Konstantin Svist wrote:
> > On 10/22/2010 04:31 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 22, 2010 01:03:36 pm Konstantin Svist wrote:
> > >> So should it be pointed to the monitor profile? If so, then there's a
> > >> problem with multi-monitor setup - each monitor has its own profile.
> > >> Then it's better to leave it on sRGB?
> > >
> > > Yes Firefox has issues with multiple monitors since it is only possible
> > > to configure it for one profile. Using sRgb is one option another is
> > > to always use firefox on one monitor and set the correct profile in
> > > it's settings.
> > >
> > > There is also a bugzilla entry for the multi-monitor issue.
> > >
> > > Hal
> >
> > So then the way it works is something like this?
> > Firefox reads an image tagged as profile X, converts it to the profile
> > it has in its settings (e.g. sRGB), then hands it off to the system,
> > which converts sRGB to display profile.
>
> No this step does not exist. Firefox expects that what is has for a
> display profile setting is the device profile. It also assumes that if
> this is not set that you want to use sRGB.
What step does not exist?
The last one?
Without any profile configured in firefox, I can see a notable change with
images shown in firefox before and after loading a profile with dispwin
This is a doubt I have.
If I load a profile with dispwin -I, is it really neccesary to configure the
same profile in gimp, firefox, geeqie... any color managed application?
Isn't it redundant?
--
David Garabana Barro
jabber & google talk ID: david@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Clave pública PGP/GPG: http://davide.garabana.com/pgp.html
Other related posts:
