Monitor Rendering Intent/Tag test profile

[probep]

If you have a profiled monitor you experience that some CMS-aware aplications render the image to a monitor different from others.
ColorKeeper has built an interesting profile to test monitor rendering intent.
I've tested some applications with this test profile. The following applications use the perceptual rendering intent:
Adobe Lightroom
Mozilla Firefox
Apple Safari
Canon ZoomBrowser EX

The following applications use the colorimetric rendering intent:
Adobe Photoshop
Canon DPP

Safari and Firefox use CMS-aware features not only for rendering images, but also for rendering menu items.  

[erick.boileau]

internet sucks :-)

[Tim Lookingbill]

internet sucks :-)

Especially for wide gamut displays and non-color managed browsers.

[tho_mas]

If you have a profiled monitor you experience that some CMS-aware aplications render the image to a monitor different from others.

no, not really. Only whitepoint adaption may differ in rare cases (in an early Firefox version for instance)...

The following applications use the perceptual rendering intent:
Mozilla Firefox

you can set the rendering intend in Firefox.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_manage...endering_intent

But... in practice it doesn't make any difference if an application translates perceptual or colormetric to the monitor profile.
TRC matrix based profiles do not contain a table for perceptual RI and even LUT based monitor profiles do not contain a perceptual table (AFAIK).
As the profiles do not contain any information about perceptual RI and common CMM's don't do their own translations here the RI to a monitor profile is de facto always colormetric.
You'll see a difference with the above mentioned test profile (as it contains the respective tables) but you won't see a difference with a monitor profile.
You can verify that for instance in Capture One (Pro) where you can set the RI in the preferences.

[probep]

you can set the rendering intend in Firefox.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_manage...endering_intent

I'm sorry. Yes, you are right. but only for Firefox 3.5.x.
Firefox 3.5.x can not handle ICC v4 profiles and many users prefer to use Firefox 3.0.x.

But... in practice it doesn't make any difference if an application translates perceptual or colormetric to the monitor profile.
TRC matrix based profiles do not contain a table for perceptual RI and even LUT based monitor profiles do not contain a perceptual table (AFAIK).
As the profiles do not contain any information about perceptual RI and common CMM's don't do their own translations here the RI to a monitor profile is de facto always colormetric.
You'll see a difference with the above mentioned test profile (as it contains the respective tables) but you won't see a difference with a monitor profile.
You can verify that for instance in Capture One (Pro) where you can set the RI in the preferences.

You are absolutely correct about matrix based profiles.
But I don't agree with you about LUT based profiles. All LUT based monitor profiles that I have seen (e.g. created with basICColor display4, ColorEyes Display Pro, i1Match,  ProfileMaker, MonacoPROFILER etc) have perceptual and colorimetric LUT tags. I have not examined them closely but at least the LUT based profile created with basICColor display software has different perceptual and colorimetric LUTs.
BTW not long ago I found this article.

[tho_mas]

All LUT based monitor profiles that I have seen (e.g. created with basICColor display4, ColorEyes Display Pro, i1Match,  ProfileMaker, MonacoPROFILER etc) have perceptual and colorimetric LUT tags. I have not examined them closely but at least the LUT based profile created with basICColor display software has different perceptual and colorimetric LUTs.

you are right. I just checked it on my laptop that is calibrated with iColor Display 2 and I've stored an LUT profile. The profile contains the A2B0, A2B1, B2A0 and B2A1 tables.
But IMO the sole difference between rel.col and perceptual is the TRC repdroduction, i.e. perceptual is the same as rel.col with BPC whereas rel.col. without BPC is different. There is no effect of desaturation by the preceptual conversion (or other typical effects of perceptual RI) and colors get clipped the same way as in a colormetric conversion. Makes sense to me. Or, the other way around, a real perceptual RI for the monitor view wouldn't make any sense at all to me (I mean: on the display you really want to view your images colormetric, no?)

[digitaldog]

I believe applications need to be written to use V4 profiles so YMMV.