Re: GaMapICC v0.5
Re: GaMapICC v0.5
- Subject: Re: GaMapICC v0.5
- From: Klaus Karcher <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:33:37 +0100
Marco Ugolini wrote:
True as that is, all images viewed on screen undergo that compensation --
the GaMap image as well as any other one. Therefore, the viewing conditions
should make the results comparable.
hmm ... I think that's not quite correct. Argyll/GaMapICC compensates
for different viewing conditions. If you select "pe" as output condition
it incorporates how colors appear in a print evaluation environment
(average surround, approx. 1000 lx ambient illuminance and 1% flare).
When you view the result for example on a monitor in darkened work
environment (dim suround, ambient illuminance < 60 lx) it simply looks
wrong as the compensation does not match the actual viewing conditions,
but the same file might well look right when printed and viewed at 1000
lx ambient illuminance. It would be best to carry out the second (soft
proof) transformation with argyll as well to avoid comparing apples and
oranges.
Please share positive examples you may have encountered.
It's often difficult to show examples due to copyright reasons, file
sizes and some of them are simply not suitable for evaluation on monitors.
I've done extensive tests with the roman16 reference images[1] and some
proposed ISO 12640-4 test images[2] for example and the results were
very convincing.
Moreover there's one challenging example on my website:
<http://digitalproof.info/gamapicc/examples.html>
Klaus
[1] <http://www.roman16.com/en/>
[2] <http://ampac.mech.muroran-it.ac.jp/ISO12640-4/>
_______________________________________________
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