- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello,
I have been using dispcalgui for some time now, and quite happy with it, thank you for this great SW !
Until now I was using a spyder 3 to profile my HP LP2475w (wide-gamut), with good results. Well, the reported gamut does not seem in accordance with the spec of the monitor, so there is definitely something fishy (I guess the spyder 3 does not cope well with the large gamut), but overall I get reasonnably accurate colors and consistent appearance under all color managed SW under Windows 7 (photoshop, browsers, etc…).
This WE I borrowed a spyder 4, and when I do the profiling I get what looks like better results for the gamut, with chromaticity coordinates of the primaries that look much more similar to what can be expected from my monitor (100% coverage of AdobeRGB gamut). And color apperance is still very good with photoshop or other color managed image viewers.
BUT, on all the browsers I tested, which are color managed (firefox, chrome, IE11), images (I am talking about sRGB images only, to keep things simple) have the same look as if I disable color management entirely (over saturated basically). I cannot explain what is happening here, did anyone encounter the same issue ?
I build the profiles exactly in the same way: curves+matrix, same number of measurement points, same calibration (I also tested without calibration, with linear curves), and same version of dispcalgui/ArgyllCMS.
I am not really using the wide gamut aspect of my monitor, so it’s not a big issue, I can stay with spyder 3, but I am really puzzled and would like to understand what’s going on here.
- This topic was modified on 2015-11-22 19:47:29 by sam508.
Hi,
BUT, on all the browsers I tested, which are color managed (firefox, chrome, IE11), images (I am talking about sRGB images only, to keep things simple) have the same look as if I disable color management entirely (over saturated basically).
- Google Chrome should have support for ICC profiles, but only ICCv2 and matrix-based (so in your case I’d expect it to work, but only for tagged images which are sparse on the web).
- IE11 color management does not work correctly.
- Firefox has an extension which lets you set that all images should be color managed: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/color-management/
You can achieve the same by changing some settings in about:config
Overall, Firefox is your best bet. If you enable ICCv4 support in about:config, it’ll also enable LUT-based profiles in case you want to go that route.
- This reply was modified on 2015-11-22 20:18:27 by fhoech.
Yes Firefox is the most complete, and I’m using it primarily.
In fact image profiles work, colors are interpreted according to their profile, and if I look at images encoded with different profiles they appear as expected. For instance on this kind of page (http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/), everything works fine (I’ve enabled iccv4 option).
It is actually the display profile that is not taken into account.
It is utterly incomprehensible ! 🙂
- This reply was modified on 2015-11-22 22:13:43 by sam508.
Latest news: I tried installing Safari for Windows and with it the display profile is correclty recognized and images are displayed exactly as they are in photoshop or other color managed applications.
Unfortunately I am not fond of this browser… (which appears mostly color managed, except that untagged items are sent directly to the frame buffer, exactly like Chrome).
