[argyllcms] Re: XYZ LUT profile unable to be installed on Windows XP or used with Firefox 3.5

  • From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:35:24 +1100

Alexander wrote:
Both Windows and Firefox are fine with XYZ LUT profiles created by
Profile Maker, ColorEyes, basICColor, ect. Argyll is the only one that
doesn't work.

Are you sure about that ? (see below)

As stated previously I believe it may be because Argyll doesn't
include the rXYZ, bXYZ, gXYZ, rTRC, bTRC, and gTRC tags on it's XYZ
LUT profiles like the other previously mentioned applications do in
their XYZ LUT profiles. It seems like it should be a simple fix for
Graeme Gill to make if that is really all it is.

The tags you quote are used just for matrix profiles. If you remove
those tags from the profiles so that only the XYZ cLUT tags remain,
do they still work ? (I bet they won't).

ie. what you are seeing is that some applications fill in both
cLUT and matrix tags, and then the CMM will choose what to
use. It's hard to know which profile type is actually being used
though, and in this case it seems that you think the XYZ cLUT is
being used, but in fact the XYZ matrix is being used. Using
Argyll profiles it's clear what is being used and what is not.

Yes, both Windows and Firefox have always been fine with shaper &
matrix profiles created by Argyll, but I want to be using an XYZ LUT
profile, which is why I posted this.

It sounds like this is not possible because Windows XP doesn't handle them.

Why is using matrix profile for color critical work more appropriate
then a higher quality LUT profile? Unfortunately the Argyll
shaper/matrix profiles don't produce close similar enough enough
output to the LAB LUT profiles created from the same .ti3 values,
which I why I just want to use the same XYZ LUT profile in Photoshop,
Windows, and Firefox so they all behave near identically (or at least
close enough).

Matrix profiles can give much smoother results, but will only fit well
to devices that behave quite additively. cLUT based profiles are far more
flexible in fitting to other device behavior, but being table based have
a degree of piecewise linear table type artefacts, and are therefore not
quite as smooth.

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: