[argyllcms] Re: Color management in google chrome

  • From: Florian Höch <lists+argyllcms@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:38:37 +0200


Am 21.04.2012 16:52, schrieb Christian Mayer:
Hash: SHA256

I don't know much about the toppic nor the different implementations...

Am 21.04.2012 16:40, schrieb János, Tóth F.:
I wonder why Firefox doesn't bring back lcms now that PCs got
faster in the last years and Firefox started to use a lot of
reasources anyway.

For example: qcms doesn't support lookup table based profiles
(compatibility problem) and prefers speed over quality (which
sounds stupid since color management should be all about quality,
not speed - even if some optimizations are necessary in some cases,
but optimizations, not speed over anything else thinking...).

... but I disagree about the point that it's stupid.

Firefox is only a web browser. It's not a graphics editor (even if
some JavaScript or Flash code thinks differently...).
So it's sufficient if it's good enough. It's quality doesn't need to
be perfect - for that please use a graphics editor.

I think there may be a misunderstanding. The main problem in Firefox' colormanagement implementation is not speed or quality (or perceived improvement respective lack thereof), but incomplete and thus _broken_ colormanagement support. The missing support for look-up table ICC profiles means that if you happen to use such a profile as your display profile, then there simply is no colormanagement.

Additionally, on Linux the browser does not pick up the assigned display profile and you have to set it manually in the browser preferences, which is counter-intuitive and error prone.

Florian Höch

Other related posts: