Hi, On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Vittorio Giovara > > <vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Kevin Wheatley > >> > <kevin.j.wheat...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Ronald S. Bultje < > rsbul...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Hmm... So, the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCI-P3 > >> >> > refers > >> >> > to the two whitepoints here as DCI-P3 D65 and DCI-P3 Theater. > Calling > >> >> > one > >> >> > D65 and the other DCI seems confusing in that light (assuming the > >> >> > wikipedia > >> >> > page is correct). I'd call it THEATER or DCI_P3_THEATER, to > >> >> > distinguish > >> >> > it > >> >> > from DCI-P3 D65. Is that OK? > >> >> > >> >> In the industry people just call it the DCI P3 white point (or > 'Urgh') > >> >> it is not limited to theater usage, you might consider it the > >> >> calibration white point for the reference projector, so > >> >> WP_DCI_P3_REFERENCE might be better, but that is a little long. > >> >> > >> >> I'd go for something like WP_DCI_P3 it is not really ambiguous. > >> > > >> > > >> > Hm... OK with me (though not ideal, but what do I know). Vittorio, OK > >> > also? > >> > I can modify patch so you don't have to resend. > >> > >> I find it a little long and not less confusing than my initial WP_DCI, > >> among all the alternatives I liked the THEATER one the most. If that's > >> a no-go, how about we could settle for WP_PROJ maybe? > > > > > > Wait, wait. Length is an issue? Really? > > > > The only reason the other names are short is because the names of the > > whitepoints are short. D65 is really just called that: D65. Likewise for > > D50. This name (whatever it is :D) is simply longer. > > It's not a matter of length but a matter of descriptiveness: right now > there is only one single different whitepoint defined by DCI, so IMO > it makes sense to call it simply WP_DCI. In case DCI adds new values, > naming can be modified later. The other whitepoints could also have > longer, more descriptive names too, like WP_ILLUMINANT_C, but at the > same time the WP_C shorthand is convenient and immediate (and IMO > better suited as variable name). That's actually a good point. I'm not sure if C is better than ILLUMINANT_C... WDYT? I guess you're sticking to the "shorter is better"? :) Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
