[Openicc] Linux CM ideology, was: meta data in test chart

[Kai-Uwe Behrmann]

Am 02.02.11, 10:47 -0700 schrieb Chris Murphy:
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:
>> Am 01.02.11, 21:51 -0700 schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>> What I really meant to say is that I don't know what their interest is 
>>> in supporting a new direction, e.g. a derivative ICC specification, or 
>>> whatever it would be. Whatever new direction would seem to require 
>>> their involvement. And if they are involved in it, but not involved in 
>>> Linux, I think open source still needs a say in the direction. I don't 
>>> think getting a collection of companies who ultimately compete against 
>>> each other is exactly the best collection of people to create a 
>>> committee because it's a conflict of interest. We've already had 
>>> that.
>>
>> What could be the corner stones of a new or derived CMS?
>>
>> * measurement based colour conversions
>
> Well ICC.2, which may produce a v5 spec, is exactly about measurement 
> based profiles and transformations being in the CMM. I do not know how 
> clear the line is drawn, or where the line is drawn. But such effort 
> requires substantially updated CMMs to support a major version change.

Agreed.

> And a big shift in responsibilities of where things go: right now we 
> choose all sorts of profile building options in profile building 
> software to define that transform at the time the profile is built; but 
> in a new paradigm with transforms in CMMs, how do we communicate options 
> to the CMM?

In Oyranos CMM options are exposed and can be shown in a UI. I do not 
think it is much of a problem, provided there is a need and willingness to 
do a similiar in other systems.

> And this would be necessary in the CUPS, pdftoraster through GhostScript 
> through lcms pipeline too. I'm pretty sure GhostScript 9 makes it 
> possible (maybe even easy) to insert other CMMs into the pipeline. But 
> this is a big shift to create software that works right in the guts of 
> display and print pipelines, rather than as separate applications that 
> build profiles and then step out of the way and aren't directly involved 
> in the course of actual transforms.

Are not CMMs already today involved? You mean the manual tweaking during 
profiling will be missed?

kind regards
Kai-Uwe Behrmann
-- 
developing for colour management 
www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org