Re: WMU Profiling Review 1.0
Re: WMU Profiling Review 1.0
- Subject: Re: WMU Profiling Review 1.0
- From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:03:07 -0500
on 4/2/02 4:43 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
>
> WMU Profiling Review 1.0
>
>
>
> This is to tell you of a report we have done on profiling software to be
>
> presented at the TAGA Technical Conference, Asheville, North Carolina, April
>
> 14, 2002.
I'm sure you're going to get a lot of "armchair quarterbacking" as a result
of this report, but here are a few questions I had re: the WMU Profiling
Review:
* Regarding the pricing listed in the report, even though on page 9 you were
evaluating scanner profiling only, the prices you listed were of the
complete application bundles instead of just the scanner profiling
application. If the scanner profiling was available separately, you should
have listed this as the price. It appears that it costs between $2,000-4,000
to build a scanner profile!
* On page 18 of the monitor profile eval, while you list the price of the
Gretag Monitor module only, with the others you still listed the package
price. This, at the very least, is not consistent with the way prices were
listed for the scanner profile eval. We all know better, but it would appear
that it costs $4,000+ to profile a monitor with Monaco software!
* All the ColorVision and Profile City applications were conspicuous by
there absence. There are more than a few of us that have a high regard for
these two company's products. I realize that if you had to include every
single profiling application out there you would still be testing, but the
question still must be asked: why weren't they included?
* The reference data used for the various scanning targets, was it "generic"
batch data or were the targets actually custom measured prior to
scanning/profiling? If so, with what?
* Were the targets scanned multiple times, once for each profile
application, or were the targets simply scanned once and this raw scan
re-used for each profile? (I hope the latter)
* I'm not sure how to interpret the Delta E results. Of the top 4, the Mean
Delta E seems to track OK but it's the Max Delta E that has me perplexed.
Looking at the results, I guess I would've gone with the FujiFilm ColourKit
Profiler as it exhibited the least variance in Max Delta E between the three
targets. Looking at the top 3, it seems each package went at least slightly
whacko with one of the targets. The Fuji Profiler didn't appear to have this
trait.
I also noticed at the end of the report, it was stated that a similar test
was being conducted for digital cameras, LCD panels and output profiles. In
the case of the digital cameras I would strongly recommend that they be
tested using at least three different cameras, possibly a high-end "chip"
back, a high-end scanning back and maybe a "pro-sumer" 35mm SLR-type camera.
And PLEASE include Profile City's ICC Capture Pro in the mix! One other
thing, don't be afraid to use a "scanner profiling" application for
profiling a digital camera. I've done it with the Gretag software and the
results might surprise you!
Next?
Regards,
Terry
_____________________________
Terence L. Wyse
Color Management Specialist
All Systems Integration, Inc.
http://www.allsystems.com
email@hidden
_____________________________
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.