[argyllcms] Re: Black Point Compensation
- From: edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 05:37:59 +0200
bpc is yet another way to guarantee that every implementation of ICC
will convey different results.
Edmund
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Gerhard Fürnkranz <nospam456@xxxxxx> wrote:
> BPC is normally not included in the profile, but computed by the CMM on the
> fly when it applies the profile.
>
> -tla (luminance matched appearance) is possibly the most similar Argyll
> intent which you can put into the perceptual table (though still not exactly
> the same)
>
> -Gerhard
>
>
>
>
> Joe Tschudi <tresorjoe@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb:
>>
>> Hello Graeme, Kai-Uwe
>>
>>>> BPC is now much in the heads of users. What is the equivalent to BPC in
>>>> Argyll?
>>>
>>>
>>> Use a real perceptual gamut mapping - ie. either create the output ICC
>>> profile
>>> perceptual table for the specific input colorspace, or create
>>> a device link of the same transform. See
>>> <http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/CrushedDisplyBlacks.html>
>>
>>
>> Would that theoretically mean that using -S AdobeRGB1998.icc in colprof
>> should deliver the same result for:
>> 1) Conversions using Relative + BPC
>> 2) Conversions using Perceptual
>> (for example converted in Photoshop using Adobe (ACE) with selectable
>> Black Point Compensation)
>>
>> I don't get the same result, what kind of -T parameter could give me the
>> same conversion result in Perceptual as a Relative + BPC conversion, if
>> there is any?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Joe Tschudi
Other related posts:
