I believe that "ICM" does refer to the the color management module that the
operating system uses for its system level color management, which in the
case of Windows systems, I believe, is the Kodak module that uses the Kodak
color management engine as opposed to Mac systems which use Colorsync.
The difference in size between .icc and .icm as well as within these two
file formats is due to the type of process they use to translate the color
figures into color spaces. Smaller profiles use a method that assigns a
matrix and number identified points correspondint to the device independent
color mode that they used as an intermediary color space while the larger
profiles usa a method that relies on actual lookup tables. The difference
only tends to effect the size of the profile file and not the outcomes.
>> there some other explanation?
A possibility in addition to the already mentioned ones is that the fact
that Nikon uses LEDs for capture sensors rather than the traditions type of
capture sensor may result in some incompatibilities between how traditional
.icc profile work when used in traditional scanners and how they work with
Nikon scanners so as to require the addition of additional information in
the profiles which is specific to Nikon's processing of capture data and its
rendering. (just speculation).
filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> Ed,
>
>> The profile generated by Vuescan was a icc extension. As a raw
>> rookie, I'm
>
> ICC stands for Internation Color Consortium, ICM doesn't stand for
> anything, the "M" is just for "module" I guess, without any
> correlation to the "IC". Files with these extensions are both ICC
> profiles. I'd prefer .icc as the extension, but .icm is more common. I
> think the colour management supplied with Windows 98 upwards uses .icm
> as the extension, which sort of establishes .icm as the de-facto
> standard.
>
>> all profiles should be icc. I noticed however, that icm profiles are
>> usually 200KB or more, while icc profiles are only 1-4KB. So my
>> question
>
> ICC profiles can vary greatly in size, depending on how many of the
> features are used, how deep the look-up tables are, etc.
>
>> is, is there an inherent difference in icc and icm profiles? I tried
>> to
>
> No.
>
>> rename my vuescan profile to Nikon's profile name and pasting it
>> into the Nikon profile directory. Nikonscan functioned, but the
>> resulting output
>
> No big surprise. The ICC profile format is very generic, and
> manufacturers often use it only as a basis for their own
> software. Given that, I don't expect Nikonscan to follow the
> specifications of the ICC, they just hacked together a driver that
> works with their profiles.
>
>> there some other explanation? If Nikon has a proprietary ICC format
>> it would explain why they wouldn't give me any information about
>> their profiles, and it would explain why Nikonscan doesn't allow
>> custom profiles, because they would be incompatible.
>
> I think they only support a small subset of ICC profiles, and the ones
> created by VueScan (and many other programs) are not among them.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Andras
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
