Closed Bug 492962 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Color profile reading is broken on windows

Categories

(Core :: Graphics: Color Management, defect)

x86
Windows 7
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: juanquin, Assigned: jrmuizel)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.9.1)

Attachments

(5 files)

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4pre) Gecko/20090413 Shiretoko/3.5b4pre
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4pre) Gecko/20090415 Shiretoko/3.5b4pre

Starting with build:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4pre) Gecko/20090415 Shiretoko/3.5b4pre

Color management is not working properly. Changing the values in the preference gfx.color_management.mode (to 1 or 2) doesn't make any visible changes, and in any case, firefox doesn't produce correct colors, and thus not matching other color-managed software, like photoshop.

According to the mozillazine firefox build page for that day:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1197435

It may be related to the bug 'Bug 481926 -  rewrite color management component', which seems was fixed that day.

Bug page:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481926


See more information about the problem here:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1219685

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Visit any page that uses images, like: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3437981984_177a221001_o.jpg
2.
3.
Actual Results:  
Colors on just every image look over-saturated.

Expected Results:  
Color rendering should match of any other working color-managed program (like photoshop).
Component: General → GFX: Color Management
Product: Firefox → Core
QA Contact: general → color-management
Confirme, whatever changed between 3.1 Beta 3 and Beta 3.5 has messed up color management.  This does not work either with LUT Based Monitor Profiles.
What does http://people.mozilla.com/~jmuizelaar/color/TestRGB8.jpg show?
Can you attach your monitor's profile to the bug?
It is green and says the embedded test profile is used, but the colors are much more saturated then they are in 3.1 B3, to the point where they are definitely not correct.  Attaching LUT profile.
NEC 2690 WUXi2 High Gamut Profile
I can reproduce the problem. I'll see what can be done to fix it.
I spoke too soon, it turns out I can't reproduce the problem. Do you have gfx.color_management.rendering_intent set to something other than 0?
I have it set to 0.

As I said earlier, no trouble with Firefix 3.1b3, only problems with version 3.5.

Others have mentioned that this might have to do with ICC version 2 profiles vs ICC version 4 profiles.  My profiles are being generated by NEC Spectraview and I believe it uses version 4 profiles.
Notice that there is no difference in saturation here, the colors are correct in both cases unlike what is occurring with beta 3.5.
3.5 color management seems broken!
You can test it here:
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
I made a few tests!
3.0.10 does not honor untagged images and renders ALL the pictures using the monitor profile!
I installed 3.1b3 and this version is working correctly! :) :)
(In reply to comment #8)
> I have it set to 0.
> 
> As I said earlier, no trouble with Firefix 3.1b3, only problems with version
> 3.5.
> 
> Others have mentioned that this might have to do with ICC version 2 profiles vs
> ICC version 4 profiles.  My profiles are being generated by NEC Spectraview and
> I believe it uses version 4 profiles.

It's true that qcms does not support version 4 profiles, however the profile you attached is a version 2 profile.

If you manually specify the path to the profile with gfx.color_management.display_profile does that fix the problem?
Nope.  Again, this works in version 3.1b3 but not 3.5.
Broken on Dell S2409W even with linking profile in about:config. I get a much darker picture with it enabled.

Below is the picture as a wallpaper on the desktop compared to in firefox.

http://img46.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=20434_Untitled-1_122_549lo.jpg

Here is the original http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/D4629676/01900_softtreadfullofmoabmud_320x240.jpg
I've been able to reproduce this and it looks like qcms_profile_from_file is broken on windows. I don't think it will be too hard to fix.
Assignee: nobody → jmuizelaar
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Flags: blocking1.9.1?
Summary: Color management (gfx.color_management.mode) not working properly → Color profile reading is broken on windows
Awesome good fine, let us know when its been pinned to the nightly build so that we can test.
Attachment #377770 - Flags: review?(joe)
Attachment #377770 - Flags: review?(joe) → review+
Whiteboard: checkin-needed
Attachment #377770 - Flags: approval1.9.1?
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0ed7321fdebd

This should block 1.9.1
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: checkin-needed → [baking on trunk since May 15]
This fix should appear in tonight's mozilla-central (3.6pre) nightly build
I just thought I'd mention that even in the nightly trunk build, this fix still doesn't make Firefox match Photoshop.

Fx3.6a1 5/17/09 vs Photoshop CS4: http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9905/cs4fftrunk.jpg
Source AdobeRGB1998 image: http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9553/testv.jpg

I'm using a 16bit LUT based profile on WinXP SP3 x86. Are these supported by qcms?

Firefox 3.0.10 (which uses the original cms not qcms) always matches Photoshop.
Can you attach your profile to the bug?
I do not believe this is fixed. DELL S2409W, here is a link to my profile direct from Dells site:

http://support.dell.com/support/downloads/download.aspx?releaseid=R188077&formatcnt=1&libid=0&fileid=257496

Below is a link to the same picture opened in Photoshop, Google Chrome, Safari Beta 4, Firefox Beta 3.5.

http://img174.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=67632_colour_122_649lo.jpg

Direct link to original image

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9553/testv.jpg
I did some further testing this morning and it seems the problem was a ICCv4 profile. I tested various ICCv2 profiles and they do seem to match Photoshop.

Any plans to support ICCv4 profiles in qcms?

I went ahead and attached my ICCv4 profile anyways, even though it sounds like it may be pointless if it's unsupported.
Attached file GDM-F520 ICCv4 Profile
I still have the same problem as well. Tested with the nightly build Gecko/20090517 Minefield/3.6a1pre.

I can attach my profile if it's needed. It was generated using NEC SpectraView software, but I don't know what kind of ICC version it is (I guess it's v4).

Is it okay to reopen the bug?
(In reply to comment #25)
> I still have the same problem as well. Tested with the nightly build
> Gecko/20090517 Minefield/3.6a1pre.
> 
> I can attach my profile if it's needed. It was generated using NEC SpectraView
> software, but I don't know what kind of ICC version it is (I guess it's v4).
> 
> Is it okay to reopen the bug?

Bug 488800 is an open bug for qcms not supporting v4 profiles. Use that bug instead of this one.
Attachment #377770 - Flags: approval1.9.1? → approval1.9.1+
Comment on attachment 377770 [details] [diff] [review]
open files with "rb" instead of "r"

a=shaver
Flags: blocking1.9.1? → blocking1.9.1+
Flags: blocking1.9.1? → blocking1.9.1+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.