5 ms·

I've never understood the need for color profiles on images themselves. On monitors and displays, sure, those vary, but why allow people to specify a color prof

I've never understood the need for color profiles on images themselves. On monitors and displays, sure, those vary, but why allow people to specify a color profile on an image, thus making images no longer a ground truth for pixel value? It seems like the main use case is dealing with images that already have color profiles. What is the point?

mlhales 5y ago
A color space and color profile are not the same. The point is knowing what a byte represents in a byte array. Is it red, hu, saturation, alpha, brightness etc?
- romwell 5y ago
  The format in question specifies this though.
kaetemi 5y ago
Because your pixels need to transform from the image color profile to the display color profile. By default this all falls back to sRGB, which is not the "ground truth pixel value" you may be assuming it is.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  Right, which begs the question why on earth would there be more than one image color profile. The image color profile should just be implied and the same everywhere.
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    What does "255" mean? If you just take it to mean "max saturation that your display can output" then it's going to be perceived as a different color depending on the viewer's display. That is undesirable. And due to historical reasons (the capabilities of CRT monitors) the meaning of "max saturation" was de facto standardized to what we now call sRGB. If you want to encode a greater range of colors than sRGB then you need to be able to say that hey, this "255" is more saturated than what sRGB considers "255" and should not be displayed on sRGB without conversion.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    Because display technology can't reproduce the full set of colors we see and and moreover, we have a finite number of bits to encode the value of any pixel. A color space/profile is both a target for display manufacturers to produce and a way of standardizing the trade off between bit depth and quantization error.
  - kaetemi 5y ago
    For correct editing operations, and correct display. Sadly, it's not pedantry, it's reality. The 0.5 value is not half the brightness of 1.0 in sRGB. It merely means half the power output to your CRT. If you want correct editing operations, you need to work in linear RGB. It gets more fun. What is white? The color of your backlight? The color of white paper under your particular desk light? And what is black? Is it pure darkness, or the black ink of your printer? Does your printer represent pure black, or dark gray? We're stuck with images stored in the display profile of old CRTs by default, because that was the most practical option at the time.
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      > We're stuck with images stored in the display profile of old CRTs by default, because that was the most practical option at the time. The analogue in photography is photographs lose color clarity and fade as they age. Why should I care if this is the case in images as display technology evolves when this is already a problem with every physical medium? > For correct editing operations, and correct display. Sadly, it's not pedantry, it's reality. I've been designing images and graphics for the web and sometimes for print off and on as a regular part of my various job functions since ~2009 and I have yet to see a situation where a color profile on an image isn't a huge pain and something that needs to be stripped away to get seemingly correct results. Back to my point, I still don't see the value of having a color profile applied to an image. Images exist in the ether as platonic ideals, and we try to approximate them with our various display technologies. Why complicate the matter by also having multiple "flavors" of the platonic ideal itself? When I say (255, 0, 0), I expect the display to show me its best approximation of red. When I say (255, 255, 255), I expect the display to show me something as close to white as possible (and at the brightest possible setting). When I say (0, 0, 0), I expect the display to show me something that looks as close to black as possible. It's up to the display technology to decide whether this means just turn off that pixel on the screen or disengage the backlight or do whatever, but at the end of the day it's just trying to approximate black. This is complicated enough, why do I need an image that will look good on only one kind of display and will have it's greens look pink on other displays. Isn't having a color profile for the display enough?
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    Unfortunately, that's not the case in pragmatic reality. When I say #ff0000, do I mean "sRGB red", as a TV would display in pure red phosphors back in the 1970s, or do I mean "1000K" / 700nm red (daylight is 6500K), which can only be reproduced by specialized displays? Most people from the time before Apple made Display P3 wide color displays standard in all their products — so, most HN commenters — believe that #ff0000 just means "only red, no green or blue" — but all web browsers currently are left to invent their own answer for what #ff0000 means, and they do not all invent the same answer. Yet. So it is with images. In the beginning times, people made sixteen-color images for NTSC monitors, and then other people learned you could display synthetic colors that don't exist by mangling the image bitstream to the monitor, and those sixteen colors were hard-coded but varied by like +/-5% per device due to acceptable manufacturing tolerances, so they were internally consistent anyways. And so we end up, today, trying to solve color profiles for file formats that specify colors as RGB hex values — which are, by definition, restricted to sRGB and thus wildly insufficient. But if we plan too far, we get file formats that are totally ridiculous - TIFF comes to mind - that can represent anything under the sun, at the cost of having a 1:1 mapping of "pixels" to "bytes" or worse. You may also find the history of the EXR format relevant here, as it supports a functionally infinite amount of dynamic range in images, and there are definitely good niche use cases for it — but pragmatically, it's ridiculously overkill for normal everyday purposes. You could argue that everyone should use EXR in Lab, but then someone would suggest Oklab (since it makes better perceptual compromises) or HSLuv (what a great name), or you could try storing raw CIE 1931 chromaticity coordinates, which has been deprecated by CIE 170-2 to address serious flaws in the 1931 system. Tying this back to engineering, there are often very good reasons for designing a processor or a byte store to be RISC or CISC, big or little endian, and we simply cannot predict what will work most pragmatically for all cases universally ahead of time, any more than the metric system was invented early enough in time to prevent miles per hour from being a unit of measure.
kortex 5y ago
No single color space is complete. Each has trade-offs. I would actually say that color profiles help get closer to ground truth, that is, rendering intent.
- demute 5y ago
  CIE XYZ is complete.
  - lstamour 5y ago
    Isn’t that kind of like saying Real numbers are complete? Yes, it’s true, but we don’t have an infinite level of precision for each colour. So we have to, practically speaking, limit how many colours can be specified to some reasonable (and arbitrary) number, e.g. 10 million or 1 billion or more (in terms of number of colours in a colour space) and representation in digital bits. Also, since I conflated the two a bit, it is often helpful to restrict what the max range of a colour is so that you can get more useful data out of the same precision. It’s kind of like creating a dictionary to compress data, you can express more useful values with less data by choosing to display a subset of colours and by picking where the white point is for your display. These optimizations used to mean more than they do today, perhaps, but it can still take a lot of effort to transfer 10-bit or 12-bit raw pixel data at 4K resolution, 120 times a second… And it’s worth pointing out that while 8-bit is all you might need as precision for perceptually lossless HDR (with dithering), that kind of range isn’t good enough for colour editing work. It’s like starting a photo edit from the JPEG rather than the RAW file.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      8 bit just objectively isn't enough for hdr. 8 bits is few enough that you can pretty easily see banding on a simple color gradient in sdr. Dithering helps a lot, but once you get to HDR 10 bits is pretty much the minimum.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Isn’t that kind of like saying Real numbers are complete? It's more like saying the range from 0..2 is complete so don't use an encoding that caps out at 0.8 or 1.1 The difference between all visible colors and a more constrained color space is only a factor of two or three. Less than half a bit per channel.
dahart 5y ago
The point is to use bits effectively and not waste them, by accounting for what usually happens on most displays and in our eyes & brains. If we don’t account for it, then (for example) a 1-bit difference between two bright colors means something very different from a 1-bit difference between two dark colors. So what is “ground truth” exactly? We need to know what units we’re talking about; is it lumens, or “tristimulus” values (what we want our eyes to see), or LCD monitor voltages, or something else? First we have to agree on what ground truth means. A big reason for common formats like PNG and JPEG to need color profiles is because 8 bits per channel is not enough color resolution unless you store the colors non-linearly. 8 bits is barely enough (or some would say almost enough) to represent low-dynamic-range images on TVs and monitors even when you have the colors gamma encoded or use a perceptual color space. The problem with storing “ground truth” values for pixels in 8-bits-per-channel formats is that many experts would probably say this implies a linear color space. And a linear color space encoded in 8 bits leaves noticeable gaps between colors, such that you can see color banding if you try to render a smooth gradient. You lose up to 2 bits of color precision in some regions, notably the dark colors. So, in order to not have color banding, we correct the colors before storing them by trying to make the colors have even steps between any 1-bit change in the spectrum. The color profile is just a record of what was done to correct the colors, so someone else can un-correct them as needed. You might think we could do away with color profiles for high-dynamic-range images, but the non-linearity of our vision and our displays means that linear encodings are still inefficient with their bits even if you have 32 bits per channel.
NL807 5y ago
Simple question: what is the "ground truth"? If you author an image on Display A and save its colours, then how does Display B know to render colours correctly that looks consistently with Display A? You have two options: 1.) Tag Display A's colour space into the image, then convert colours to match Display B's colour space when rendering; 2.) Convert colour data from Display A colour space into a generic colour space (like sRGB, Display P3, ACEScg, etc) and embed that in to the image, then convert colours to match Display B's colour space when rendering.

mlhales 5y ago

A color space and color profile are not the same. The point is knowing what a byte represents in a byte array. Is it red, hu, saturation, alpha, brightness etc?

romwell 5y ago
The format in question specifies this though.

kaetemi 5y ago

Because your pixels need to transform from the image color profile to the display color profile. By default this all falls back to sRGB, which is not the "ground truth pixel value" you may be assuming it is.

sam0x17 5y ago
Right, which begs the question why on earth would there be more than one image color profile. The image color profile should just be implied and the same everywhere.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  What does "255" mean? If you just take it to mean "max saturation that your display can output" then it's going to be perceived as a different color depending on the viewer's display. That is undesirable. And due to historical reasons (the capabilities of CRT monitors) the meaning of "max saturation" was de facto standardized to what we now call sRGB. If you want to encode a greater range of colors than sRGB then you need to be able to say that hey, this "255" is more saturated than what sRGB considers "255" and should not be displayed on sRGB without conversion.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  Because display technology can't reproduce the full set of colors we see and and moreover, we have a finite number of bits to encode the value of any pixel. A color space/profile is both a target for display manufacturers to produce and a way of standardizing the trade off between bit depth and quantization error.
- kaetemi 5y ago
  For correct editing operations, and correct display. Sadly, it's not pedantry, it's reality. The 0.5 value is not half the brightness of 1.0 in sRGB. It merely means half the power output to your CRT. If you want correct editing operations, you need to work in linear RGB. It gets more fun. What is white? The color of your backlight? The color of white paper under your particular desk light? And what is black? Is it pure darkness, or the black ink of your printer? Does your printer represent pure black, or dark gray? We're stuck with images stored in the display profile of old CRTs by default, because that was the most practical option at the time.
  - sam0x17 5y ago
    > We're stuck with images stored in the display profile of old CRTs by default, because that was the most practical option at the time. The analogue in photography is photographs lose color clarity and fade as they age. Why should I care if this is the case in images as display technology evolves when this is already a problem with every physical medium? > For correct editing operations, and correct display. Sadly, it's not pedantry, it's reality. I've been designing images and graphics for the web and sometimes for print off and on as a regular part of my various job functions since ~2009 and I have yet to see a situation where a color profile on an image isn't a huge pain and something that needs to be stripped away to get seemingly correct results. Back to my point, I still don't see the value of having a color profile applied to an image. Images exist in the ether as platonic ideals, and we try to approximate them with our various display technologies. Why complicate the matter by also having multiple "flavors" of the platonic ideal itself? When I say (255, 0, 0), I expect the display to show me its best approximation of red. When I say (255, 255, 255), I expect the display to show me something as close to white as possible (and at the brightest possible setting). When I say (0, 0, 0), I expect the display to show me something that looks as close to black as possible. It's up to the display technology to decide whether this means just turn off that pixel on the screen or disengage the backlight or do whatever, but at the end of the day it's just trying to approximate black. This is complicated enough, why do I need an image that will look good on only one kind of display and will have it's greens look pink on other displays. Isn't having a color profile for the display enough?
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  Unfortunately, that's not the case in pragmatic reality. When I say #ff0000, do I mean "sRGB red", as a TV would display in pure red phosphors back in the 1970s, or do I mean "1000K" / 700nm red (daylight is 6500K), which can only be reproduced by specialized displays? Most people from the time before Apple made Display P3 wide color displays standard in all their products — so, most HN commenters — believe that #ff0000 just means "only red, no green or blue" — but all web browsers currently are left to invent their own answer for what #ff0000 means, and they do not all invent the same answer. Yet. So it is with images. In the beginning times, people made sixteen-color images for NTSC monitors, and then other people learned you could display synthetic colors that don't exist by mangling the image bitstream to the monitor, and those sixteen colors were hard-coded but varied by like +/-5% per device due to acceptable manufacturing tolerances, so they were internally consistent anyways. And so we end up, today, trying to solve color profiles for file formats that specify colors as RGB hex values — which are, by definition, restricted to sRGB and thus wildly insufficient. But if we plan too far, we get file formats that are totally ridiculous - TIFF comes to mind - that can represent anything under the sun, at the cost of having a 1:1 mapping of "pixels" to "bytes" or worse. You may also find the history of the EXR format relevant here, as it supports a functionally infinite amount of dynamic range in images, and there are definitely good niche use cases for it — but pragmatically, it's ridiculously overkill for normal everyday purposes. You could argue that everyone should use EXR in Lab, but then someone would suggest Oklab (since it makes better perceptual compromises) or HSLuv (what a great name), or you could try storing raw CIE 1931 chromaticity coordinates, which has been deprecated by CIE 170-2 to address serious flaws in the 1931 system. Tying this back to engineering, there are often very good reasons for designing a processor or a byte store to be RISC or CISC, big or little endian, and we simply cannot predict what will work most pragmatically for all cases universally ahead of time, any more than the metric system was invented early enough in time to prevent miles per hour from being a unit of measure.

kortex 5y ago

No single color space is complete. Each has trade-offs. I would actually say that color profiles help get closer to ground truth, that is, rendering intent.

demute 5y ago
CIE XYZ is complete.
- lstamour 5y ago
  Isn’t that kind of like saying Real numbers are complete? Yes, it’s true, but we don’t have an infinite level of precision for each colour. So we have to, practically speaking, limit how many colours can be specified to some reasonable (and arbitrary) number, e.g. 10 million or 1 billion or more (in terms of number of colours in a colour space) and representation in digital bits. Also, since I conflated the two a bit, it is often helpful to restrict what the max range of a colour is so that you can get more useful data out of the same precision. It’s kind of like creating a dictionary to compress data, you can express more useful values with less data by choosing to display a subset of colours and by picking where the white point is for your display. These optimizations used to mean more than they do today, perhaps, but it can still take a lot of effort to transfer 10-bit or 12-bit raw pixel data at 4K resolution, 120 times a second… And it’s worth pointing out that while 8-bit is all you might need as precision for perceptually lossless HDR (with dithering), that kind of range isn’t good enough for colour editing work. It’s like starting a photo edit from the JPEG rather than the RAW file.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    8 bit just objectively isn't enough for hdr. 8 bits is few enough that you can pretty easily see banding on a simple color gradient in sdr. Dithering helps a lot, but once you get to HDR 10 bits is pretty much the minimum.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > Isn’t that kind of like saying Real numbers are complete? It's more like saying the range from 0..2 is complete so don't use an encoding that caps out at 0.8 or 1.1 The difference between all visible colors and a more constrained color space is only a factor of two or three. Less than half a bit per channel.

dahart 5y ago

The point is to use bits effectively and not waste them, by accounting for what usually happens on most displays and in our eyes & brains. If we don’t account for it, then (for example) a 1-bit difference between two bright colors means something very different from a 1-bit difference between two dark colors. So what is “ground truth” exactly? We need to know what units we’re talking about; is it lumens, or “tristimulus” values (what we want our eyes to see), or LCD monitor voltages, or something else? First we have to agree on what ground truth means. A big reason for common formats like PNG and JPEG to need color profiles is because 8 bits per channel is not enough color resolution unless you store the colors non-linearly. 8 bits is barely enough (or some would say almost enough) to represent low-dynamic-range images on TVs and monitors even when you have the colors gamma encoded or use a perceptual color space. The problem with storing “ground truth” values for pixels in 8-bits-per-channel formats is that many experts would probably say this implies a linear color space. And a linear color space encoded in 8 bits leaves noticeable gaps between colors, such that you can see color banding if you try to render a smooth gradient. You lose up to 2 bits of color precision in some regions, notably the dark colors. So, in order to not have color banding, we correct the colors before storing them by trying to make the colors have even steps between any 1-bit change in the spectrum. The color profile is just a record of what was done to correct the colors, so someone else can un-correct them as needed. You might think we could do away with color profiles for high-dynamic-range images, but the non-linearity of our vision and our displays means that linear encodings are still inefficient with their bits even if you have 32 bits per channel.

NL807 5y ago

Simple question: what is the "ground truth"? If you author an image on Display A and save its colours, then how does Display B know to render colours correctly that looks consistently with Display A? You have two options: 1.) Tag Display A's colour space into the image, then convert colours to match Display B's colour space when rendering; 2.) Convert colour data from Display A colour space into a generic colour space (like sRGB, Display P3, ACEScg, etc) and embed that in to the image, then convert colours to match Display B's colour space when rendering.