https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
--- Comment #7 from Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org 2011-08-06 08:36:14 UTC
---
It shouldn't matter what support imagemagick has really, it just needs to pass
the profile through to the thumbnail. In all cases I've seen, it does -- the
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
--- Comment #4 from deletesoftw...@yandex.ru 2011-08-05 11:30:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
http://news.cnet.com/Safari-ushers-in-better-browser-colors/2100-1012_3-6191815.html
That article is too old (2007).
From the links Kevin
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
--- Comment #5 from deletesoftw...@yandex.ru 2011-08-05 13:22:40 UTC ---
There is some lack of support for ICC v4 profiles in Firefox though:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488800
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
--- Comment #6 from Mark A. Hershberger m...@everybody.org 2011-08-05
13:45:35 UTC ---
What sort of profile support does imagemagick have?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
--- Comment #1 from Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org 2011-08-04 17:23:43 UTC
---
The three images cited there look overly pale in both original and thumbnail in
Firefox 5.0.1 / Mac OS X 10.7, and look reasonably pleasant in both forms in
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
Mark A. Hershberger m...@everybody.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||upstream
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
--- Comment #3 from Mark A. Hershberger m...@everybody.org 2011-08-04
20:58:26 UTC ---
http://news.cnet.com/Safari-ushers-in-better-browser-colors/2100-1012_3-6191815.html
Safari supports color profiles, but firefox doesn't.
--
Configure
