On 11/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kai-Uwe Behrmann</b> <<a href="mailto:ku.b@gmx.de">ku.b@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
A application had to decide wether to:<br>o staying with ICC proofing gamut warnings for proofing<br>o mark only outside tonemapped results, what is not visible on screen<br><br>or both?<br><br>The above options have distinguished audiences, which can easily confuse.
<br>The first marks all changes compared to a simulated output process, while<br>the later just non tonemapable colours. Most users today need the first<br>option as they work in a media centric way.<br><br>It is at least necessary to find a relyable distinction between both.
</blockquote><div><br>I think it's a two separate processes, going each by each. It's well described in ILM proposal ( <a href="http://www.openexr.com/OpenEXRColorManagement.pdf">http://www.openexr.com/OpenEXRColorManagement.pdf
</a> ), see (SROM+OMRD) and (RDPD) there. <br>So, there is two processes: First (SROM+OMRD) simulates output to virtual device (printer, for example), which may provide gamut warnings about some source colors can't be reproduced on that virtual device.
<br>And the second step (RDPD) is output from that virtual device is to be shown on our preview display, providing gamut warnings about some colors which CAN be reproduced by our virtual device, but CANNOT be reproduced by our preview display.
<br>So we have two separate gamut warning mechanisms, with different meanings, and important thing that if we aren't planning to output image somewhere else then our monitor, we may skip the first step, staying with only warnings about false colors on our display.
<br></div><br></div>