Am 16.11.2012 01:59, schrieb Dale:
On 11/15/2012 09:03 AM, Thomas Richter wrote:
Am 15.11.2012 02:57, schrieb Dale:


CIECAM would be better, of course you have to pick a standard CAM
(appearance) for the profile connection space to convert between CAMs

the current ICC perceptual connection space uses an ideal print for the
CAM, this is not ideal for transparent and translucent display materials
or additive systems, they have a larger gamut than a print and you have
to make up information when you render from the standard CAM (the print)
to these gamuts, maybe you can have choices for the standard CAM

First, this is a *PROFILE* connection space. It is unrelated to
*PERCEPTUAL* rendering. Once more!

Second, it is *UNRELATED* to ideal printing. The PCS has nothing to do
with printing, rendering intent, the material you print on or its
properties.

Third, the PCS doesn't have a "gamut". XYZ is able to represent all
colors, if you like to.


you are confusing the PCS with the CMM, the PCS does have rendering
choices that you make on input and output profiles

*Sigh*, no I'm not confusing this. I've already written CMMs, if you
care. The PCS does not have rendering choices in the same sense that the
R^3 does not have vector choices. It is the CMM that can implement
various rendering intents.