Hi, On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Vittorio Giovara < > vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > 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"? :) >> >> In this case, yes, shorter is better, in my opinion. > > > OK fine then we'll keep it as-is. > Pushed. Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
