Re: Is anyone getting better than a 3.0 DeltaE average on their Monitor profile?
Re: Is anyone getting better than a 3.0 DeltaE average on their Monitor profile?
- Subject: Re: Is anyone getting better than a 3.0 DeltaE average on their Monitor profile?
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:28:45 -0400
>
I believe you will find that Monaco and Gretag Macbeth software use XYZ
>
scaling for whitepoint adaption, while ColorVision uses the Bradford
>
Transform... as does Photoshop, so the results between Photoshop and the
>
ColorVision profiles are consistant, while the results between the others and
>
Photoshop are not, as you have discovered. This bit of information is thanks
>
to Bruce Lindbloom as well.
>
>
C. David Tobie
>
Design Cooperative
>
email@hidden
Your point is well taken, C.D. But the extent of adaptation in my case,
since I always calibrate to 5000K, ought to be very minimal (my measured CCT
is around 4900K to 5100K, depending on the instrument I use to measure it).
So that would not account for a large chunk of the discrepancy I am
observing, would it?
I am going to give OptiCal a try, since I have it, and we'll see.
Thank's for the advice, you and Bruce L.,
Roger Breton
_______________________________________________
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.