3 comments

  • LegionMammal97827 minutes ago
    sRGB has bugged me from the start, since it&#x27;s not even clear to me which actual matrix to use to convert between linear sRGB colors and XYZ colors. I count at least 3 different matrices in IEC 61966-2-1, each of which I have seen different people ascribe to as the true version:<p>1. The matrix implied by the reference primaries in Table 1: [X;Y;Z] = [506752&#x2F;1228815,87098&#x2F;409605,7918&#x2F;409605; 87881&#x2F;245763,175762&#x2F;245763,87881&#x2F;737289; 12673&#x2F;70218,12673&#x2F;175545,1001167&#x2F;1053270]*[R;G;B].<p>2. The matrix in section 5.2: [X;Y;Z] = [1031&#x2F;2500,447&#x2F;1250,361&#x2F;2000; 1063&#x2F;5000,447&#x2F;625,361&#x2F;5000; 193&#x2F;10000,149&#x2F;1250,1901&#x2F;2000]*[R;G;B].<p>3. The inverse of the matrix in section 5.3: [X;Y;Z] = [248898325000&#x2F;603542646087,71938950000&#x2F;201180882029,36311670000&#x2F;201180882029; 128304856250&#x2F;603542646087,143878592500&#x2F;201180882029,14525360000&#x2F;201180882029; 11646692500&#x2F;603542646087,23977515000&#x2F;201180882029,191221850000&#x2F;201180882029]*[R;G;B].<p>The distinction starts to matter for 16-bit color. The CSS people seem to take the position that the matrix implied by primaries is the true version, but meanwhile, the same document&#x27;s Annex F (in Amd. 1) seems to suggest that the 5.2 matrix is the true version, and that the 5.3 matrix should be rederived to the increased precision. There&#x27;s no easy way to decide, as far as I can tell.<p>Meanwhile, I agree with the author that the ICC&#x27;s black-point finagling in their published profiles has not helped with the confusion over what exactly sRGB colors are supposed to map to.
  • gpvos34 minutes ago
    I would have loved to have found this page back when I was adapting some PDF-generating program to conform to PDF&#x2F;A (which requires a colour profile in some cases). I found several sRGB profiles and could see that they were different, but knowing almost nothing about them I just chose the one that seemed to be from the most authoritative source (I forgot which). This page must have existed then, actually.
  • magicalhippo57 minutes ago
    From 2012, updated 2015 it says. Would have been interesting with a recent update to compare.