Re: Conceptual questions

[Florian Höch <lists+gnome-color-manager hoech org>]

Am 02.07.2010 14:58, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> Right. I don't think a "default softproofing device" makes much sense
> when you're aiming the feature at things like print preview. A
> "default softproofing device" might make sense as a per-application
> option if you're proofing to a PDF or something, although that sounds
> all very application specific.

I think I agree on this.

> I'm guessing it's just choosing where to put the line. I would argue
> that asking the user what rendering mode they want to use for a print
> preview is overboard, as you could just choose a good default and use
> that. Similarly for rendering random RGB spaces to the desktop,
> perceptual is probably the best plan.

Right. My concern is more if applications (or rather developers) then 
know to do the "right thing" when they query GCM for the current 
"softproof" setting to do a print preview, which would be, "convert 
image with user selected GCM 'softproof' intent to device space, then 
absolute colorimetrically to the display" - we don't want gamut mapping 
to happen twice, that would invalidate the print preview. Of course 
matrix profiles only support colorimetric either way. Still, it's 
something to keep in mind.

> If you've got any better ideas about what should be in the UI (BPC?)
> as a sensible per-session default then I'm interested. You could also
> argue that dispcalGUI and GCM should be working closer together in
> this respect, and I'm open for suggestions.

Personally I'd probably label the current "softproof" intent setting as 
"print preview" or something along the line.
And I think adding an option for BPC would indeed be a nice touch. 
Rather than adding a checkbox or other additional control, just another 
intent "Relative with black point compensation" could be added to the 
dropdown lists.

Re making dispcalGUI and GCM work closer together: Sure, it's an option. 
I wouldn't limit it to dispcalGUI though as other screen 
calibration/profiling solutions may exist in future (I hear LProf was/is 
planning to have a measurement capability, but I have to admit I'm not 
really well informed in that regard). Some wild thinking: Users can 
already choose their preferred applications for different 
filetypes/tasks. Maybe in the future, users can choose the preferred 
calibration solution in a similar way? Although right now, it's probably 
over the top, as only dispcalGUI and GCM exist as viable options afaik 
:) (and of course, directly using the Argyll tools on the commandline)

Regards,
--
Florian Höch
http://hoech.net