Microsoft provide a test JPG (of a motorcycle) with colour channels switched to test if colour profiles are handled correctly by applications under Vista with its new facilities.
It can be found at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/color_blog/

With PMView (3.53) the bike is blue.
Microsoft say that means the "the embedded profile is being completely ignored."

Is this a deliberate decision to ignore the profiles in PMView?

I freely confess I do not understand the significance of this - if any!

I only stumbled across this because I wanted to understand why each of my image applications give slightly different views of an image.

I have attached the test image.
David

Would it be easier to provide a capability to view just an embedded JPG if one has been included, but not to do anything with the raw data?
It might then be appropriate to include a warning message if someone tries to zoom in too much on the jpg data, saying the original more detailed data cannot be seen?

David H-S

Do you have plans to include the ability to read DNG files?

Back in May I think it was, Adobe submitted DNG to ISO as a candidate non proprietary standard.

I am submitting a set of photos for an archive project in DNG format instead of TIFF.

It would be good to be able to continue using just one image viewer instead of needing something else for DNG.

Apologies if this has been covered in your forum recently. The search facility won't let me search on just DNG as it is too short!

David H-S

I select a large area of the screen to capture but the area actually captured is smaller than my selection. The actual image size captured varies around 1300 x 900 pixels.

This is on running PMView Pro 3.51 with Vista SP1.
My display resolution is 1920 x 1200.

Is there some subtle Vista or PMView limit at work here?

A possible factor: This PC is a laptop with a native resolution of 1400 x 1050 but displaying onto a larger external screen. The video card and driver are well capable of running this screen at the full 1920 x 1200. I have rebooted (a number of times) since starting to use this larger screen.

I note also that IrfanView exhibits similar behaviour, although the size captured seems to be slightly smaller.

So, do we have some Vista issue here?

It is now over 18 months since your last comments about JP2.
Any new developments to tell us about?
I should like to be able to use JP2 lossless for a project.

David H-S

Can anyone direct me to a well-informed discussion of image archive considerations?
And also to the possible use of TIFF for archive purposes?

I am involved in a project in the UK (with NADFAS for UK readers, National Assoc Decorative & Fine Arts Societies) to formally document and record for posterity everything in and about a couple of local churches. (This is a national volunteer project involving many hundreds of churches, but I am only involved in my local activity.)

The organisers of this project have decided that photographs should be stored as TIFFs. Quite rightly they are concerned to avoid lossy formats and to ensure image files can be read in years to come. But, as noted in the discussion of file formats in the PMView documentation, just specifying TIFFs is perhaps not a sufficient answer.
I quote the manual:
"Beware! Many applications only handle a small subset of the formats specified in the TIFF specs. Don't take for granted that an application will be able to read the files you
save!" endquote
There are umpteen options with TIFF and despite ever cheaper storage, TIFF file sizes can be very large if the right options are not selected.

I should like to read up a bit on this subject and so would appreciate any pointers.
Thank you.