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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
