Re: Perceptual intent [Gretag vs. Monaco?]
Re: Perceptual intent [Gretag vs. Monaco?]
- Subject: Re: Perceptual intent [Gretag vs. Monaco?]
- From: neil snape <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:38:52 +0200
on 29/04/2003 10:07, LAMMENS,JOHAN (HP-Spain,ex2) wrote :
>
Not to pick nits, but all rendering intent tables have gamut mapping applied
>
to them, including the colorimetric ones. There are always large areas of
>
the PCS out of the printer gamut, and they need to be (gamut) mapped into
>
something printable. Colorimetric intents typically use minimum delta-E
>
mapping to the gamut surface, whereas Perceptual intents presumably use
>
something smarter and also move points inside the printer gamut, not just
>
the ones outside. Note that "min dE" mapping produces some rather strange
>
artifacts, and there is no rule that says that Colorimetric intents must use
>
it - they could also map to the gamut surface along lines of constant hue,
>
for instance.
Yes but the original thread was on mapping Fluorescent correction into
perceptual tables only in Gretag Profile maker. HDM also applied it in the
perceptual. They certainly had a think different approach to the
colorimetric tables. If the features are implemented in any one table,
documentation to this effects helps. Saves us from multiple rounds of
testing and or surprises.
Neil Snape email@hidden
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape
_______________________________________________
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.