But, alas, you can iterate. Based on that error measured, you can calculate
the correction needed to output (CMYK) values in the gridpoint and apply
such correction; and so on for the remaining gridpoints in this "Lab"
target. And of course (for the sake of consistency), interpolate those
correction vectors so as to apply to the in-between gridpoints that were not
part of the Lab target.
The more the device (CMYK) values in your output table result in actually
yielding the Lab values that define the gridpoint, the more accurate your
profile is, and the more accurate the linking (prebuilt or dynamic) with ANY
source profile.
In short, the more accurate your profile has become.
Why not?
Because it's not actually necessary. If you have a (relatively
small number of Lab values you'd like like the CMYK for, just invert
the A2B table. The inversion can be as numerically accurate as you like,
and you have no better information on the actual device response than
the A2B table.
If you're trying to improve the accuracy of the B2A table, then sure,
you can fiddle with the grid values to improve the result for a certain
set of test values, but since you aren't examining the changes for all
the other in-gamut values you're not testing, the overall B2A table
accuracy is likely to get worse, even as the results for your test set
improve !
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
