Stefan Döhla wrote:
Hm, I'm tempted to say "yes" - but: there are a bunch of other loaders that count as well - Logo Calibration Loader, Monaco thing, Spyder ProfileChooser, WindowsXP Color Control Panel, xcalib, dispwin, ...
I can't agree with you. It's not a matter of a vote, it's a matter of what's technically correct. I can't imagine Apple changing what they do because others have mis-implemented a private tag of theirs, no matter how widespread such a mis-implementation is.
>> ramp[j] = 65536.0 * >> pow (j * (rMax - rMin) / nEntries, rGamma * SYSTEM_GAMMA) >> + rMin);
That doesn't differ much from my formula above
The handling of min/max is rather different - you've got it inside the power, whereas the correct formula has it outside the power. In practice I wouldn't imagine it will often matter, since there seem to be few profiles that use the formula, and even fewer with values for min/max other than 0.0 and 1.0 respectively.
Hm, maybe it's safe for both dispwin and xcalib to add a parameter for a gamma-nominator/mulitplier or something like this. But still I'm interested how all the other loaders work and will do some tests.
In practice it probably doesn't matter much - who's going to go to the trouble of calibrating their system, and then use a single number to represent it ? Anything serious is going to use a table. cheers, Graeme Gill.