Re: Photoshop and LUT Profiles
Re: Photoshop and LUT Profiles
- Subject: Re: Photoshop and LUT Profiles
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:50:26 -0500
>> "As the world¹s first dedicated display calibration software, iColor Proof IP
>> allows you to save the profile in two different ways without the need of a
>> recalibration. One can choose between a matrix- and a LUT-profile. As Adobe
>> Photoshop is not able to work correctly with LUT-profiles it¹s not
>> recommended
>> to use this kind of profile in such a workflow. Instead a matrix-profile will
>> do the job."
>
> Now, I am no wiz when it comes to the inner arcana of color profiles, but
> doesn't this sound a bit off? From what I know so far, (a) LUT-based monitor
> profiles are supposed to be BETTER than matrix-based ones, given the
> latter's inherently imprecise rendition of the display's behavior. And (b)
> what is this about Photoshop not being "able to work correctly with
> LUT-profiles"? Is this a load of bull or is there any truth to it?
I routinely calibrated my LCD with the help of various profiling packages,
some of which produces LUT-based profiles, and I never had any problems wih
Photoshop interfacing to those kinds of profiles.
Now, it is true that LUT-based profiles are not the end all be all. Depends.
On good CRTs, a matrix/TRC profile is plenty because there is no crosstalk
between the channels and the beam amplifier behaves as a true radiometric
scaler. Butnot so on even the best LCDs. Hence, the need for 3D profiles,
IMO.
> Marco Ugolini
> Mill Valley, CA
Regards,
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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