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

[Stefan Döhla]

Hi Edmund,

this discussion is very interesting to read and I agree with the 
simplicity argument.

What we really need is simplicity for successful color management. 
Anything else which solved problems for a certain vertical market has 
certainly been a step forward - but for the widespread color awareness a 
much simpler model is needed.

Having sRGB as the legacy agreement plus a new agreement on a data 
exchange format (not having transformations applied already) seems to me 
the only way forward. This is to some extent already happening, with 
data being ICC-tagged, but for widespread acceptance a good and really 
simple successor of the limited sRGB is - at least in my opinion - 
necessary. I see that this initially lacks proofing abilities - but most 
non-professionals just want things to be color-identical everywhere.

Cheers
- Stefan

Am 02.02.2011 22:23, schrieb edmund ronald:
> Max,
>
>   Thank you for this clarification.  I think everyone here appreciates
> the work you are doing, and the fact that you release your code as
> open source.
>
>   After reading and posting here for a while, It seems to me that even
> if the various specialists who post here manage to assemble a
> functional framework for Linux, OS-leve integration and support will
> remain haphazard as CMS is not really a priority for X, and
> application-level color management will also probably be incomplete
> and buggy because apps haven't got it now, and their authors are going
> to be faced with an over-difficult programming problem.
>
>   To me it seems that the situation with ICC1 and maybe now ICC2 is
> that it works reasonably for vertical markets, but does not offer a
> unified conceptual and programming model that is sufficiently simple
> as that non-specialised developers find themselves motivated to
> implement CMS, and capable of doing so.
>
>   If some other model would be offered that might be much simpler and
> unified even though less powerful, then maybe OS-level adoption would
> be easier to achieve. To put it bluntly, I believe that the idea of
> profiles and renderings which served as the foundation for Colorsync
> doesn't cut it in a general-purpose environment. It assumes too much
> understanding on the part of non-specialist developers.
>
> I would suggest that writing an "absolute" (colorimetric) color to a
> window or a printer might make more sense because it would then be the
> responsibility of the OS to make sure that the write-through to the
> physical device actually has some acceptable semantics; This would be
> a simplification which both the graphics systems designers and
> applications designers could relate to.
>
> Edmund
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Max Derhak<max.derhak at onyxgfx.com>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I'm on the ICC AWG working with others on ICC.2 at the moment I'd
>> like to pipe in a bit here.  We are definitely open to outside input.
>> Before I say anything else though, let me make it perfectly clear that
>> ICC.2 is not meant as a replacement for ICC.1.  If you are happy with
>> ICC.1 then stick with it.  If you are unhappy, then we can talk about
>> ICC.2 which is really meant to address areas (though not all) that ICC.1
>> does not address well.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> openicc mailing list
> openicc at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openicc