On 17.11.2015 18:43, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:34:06 +0100
> Stefan Mark <mark_AT_unserver.de> wrote:
>
> Hey Stefan,
>
>> I know, its all about simplicity, but with only a marginally higher
>> complexity an arbitrary number of channels and color spaces could be
>> supported. Something like this:
>> A type field
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>> | 1 | Type of channels: 0 predefined, 1 wavelength, 2 names |
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>> and, depending on the type:
>>
>> type 0
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>> | 8 | For example RGB, RGBA, CMYK, LAB, ... |
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>> type 1 (Multispektral Images)
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>> | 2 | Number of Channels |
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>> | [8] | List of lower/higher wavelength of channel (2 floats) |
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>> type 2 (Arbitrary image-like data)
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>> | 2 | Number of Channels |
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>> | [32] | List of channel labels (32 byte long strings) |
>> +--------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
>
> I read your mail at least 10 times now, but I've still got no clue
> what the hell you are talking about.
What i meant, instead of having RGBA and only RGBA, it could have a flag
that says either which color model is used, (like rgb, rgba, lab,
monochrome, ...) or define how many color channels the image has, either
named or by giving the channels wavelength.
That would allow for example scientific images to be stored (eg, r,g,b
channels as well as a few infrared ranges and a bit of uv, maybe imaging
radar, ...), or arbitrary image-like data (eg pressure, temperature,
tensile stress, ...), or special colors for printing (eg cmyk and
metallic color, glow-in-the-dark-color, transparent coating, ...).
For common image purposes, the format would be only a very small bit
more complex, although it would be much more versatile.
Providing a method to define the amount of dimension used would be nice too.
> If we go down this path, we probably would end up with the TIFF format
> in finite time.
I dont think so. The changes compared to the original format are pretty
small.
Received on Wed Nov 18 2015 - 11:16:56 CET