Land qcms LUT support with Pref

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla8

Status

()

Core
GFX: Color Management
RESOLVED FIXED
6 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: BenWa, Assigned: BenWa)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla8
x86
Mac OS X
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(3 attachments, 3 obsolete attachments)

(Assignee)

Description

6 years ago
The goal is to land new qcms ICC v4 features such as CLUT support on m-c with a preference to enable them.
(Assignee)

Comment 1

6 years ago
Created attachment 548542 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 1: Merge from qcms github branch v4

https://github.com/jrmuizel/qcms/commits/v4
(Assignee)

Comment 2

6 years ago
Created attachment 548543 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 2: Add gfx.color_management.force_v4

Feel free to nit pick about the name.

Waiting for tryserver results before flagging review.
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Attachment #548543 - Attachment is patch: true
(Assignee)

Comment 3

6 years ago
Created attachment 548768 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 1: Merge from qcms github branch v4
Attachment #548768 - Flags: review?(jmuizelaar)
(Assignee)

Comment 4

6 years ago
Created attachment 548770 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 2: Add gfx.color_management.force_v4
Attachment #548542 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #548543 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #548770 - Flags: review?(jmuizelaar)
(Assignee)

Comment 5

6 years ago
Try run:
http://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&pusher=b56girard@gmail.com&rev=661b4dd715a4
Attachment #548768 - Flags: review?(jmuizelaar) → review+
Comment on attachment 548770 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 2: Add gfx.color_management.force_v4

I don't really see the point of CMVersionFourPrefName. The only thing I can think of is to keep all of the different prefs close together. However, I think documentation would serve this just as well.

I suggest just using the name directly. I'd also take a patch to inline all of the other names.
Attachment #548770 - Flags: review?(jmuizelaar) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 7

6 years ago
Created attachment 548841 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 2: Add gfx.color_management.force_v4 + qcms pref inline

Carrying forward r+
Attachment #548770 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Comment 8

6 years ago
http://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Mozilla-Inbound&rev=2148365fbb7c
Whiteboard: [inbound]
(Assignee)

Comment 9

6 years ago
Created attachment 548885 [details] [diff] [review]
Follow up: Rename pref
Attachment #548885 - Flags: review?(jmuizelaar)
Attachment #548885 - Flags: review?(jmuizelaar) → review+
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/77305d830151
Assignee: nobody → bgirard
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [inbound]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla8
Also: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/86ff239e3948
Also: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8d309b30299a
(Assignee)

Comment 13

6 years ago
I just tested with the following profile: http://www.colorkeeper.com/?page_id=235

We get the un managed result without v4 and the perceptual with the v4 pref. I would of expected to get the TRC result however we are less strict with the profiles we reject now.

The profile in the package is very interesting. It shows very obviously what is being managed and what is not (i.e. the browser chrome).
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Depends on: 752254
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
No longer depends on: 752254
Depends on: 761014
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.