- From: Fredrik Hubinette <hubbe@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:56:04 -0700
- To: Lars Borg <borg@adobe.com>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "public-colorweb@w3.org" <public-colorweb@w3.org>
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2017 05:56:41 UTC
Ah, my mistake. What we have implemented is support for parametric curves, which I had incorrectly assumed was ICC V2. Anything that can't be described with parametric curves, we use a 3D-LUT for, which is both less accurate and less efficient. /Hubbe On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Lars Borg <borg@adobe.com> wrote: > For chrome to do color management efficiently, everything needs to be > done on the GPU. > Tables are generally much less efficient than doing using math on the GPU, > and my impression > is that ICC v4 relies much more heavily on tables than ICC v2. > > > Yes, I see the point, but I don’t see there being more LUTs in V4 profiles > than in V2, rather the opposite. > With v4 we can use the parametric curves instead of the sampled 1D LUTs in > V2. > For example the standard sRGB profile (colorimetric intent) can be > created entirely without LUTs in V4, but requires LUTs in V2. > Ditto display profiles. > > Lars >
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2017 05:56:41 UTC