Re: Big problems using Bill Atkinssons new Eye-1 profiles
Re: Big problems using Bill Atkinssons new Eye-1 profiles
- Subject: Re: Big problems using Bill Atkinssons new Eye-1 profiles
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:27:33 -0800
At 4:40 PM -0500 2/5/06, Jim Rich wrote:
I am curious to end-users who are doing the RGB workflow thing.... is there
that much (if any) of a performance hit with using the GMB RGB 918 chart vs
a chart with a higher patch count?
And if there are claims that a higher patch set does produce a better
result, is there hard scientific evidence to support that claim?
What's the hard scientific definition of "better result"?
It takes longer to measure a higher patch count target, and a little
longer to calculate the profile. There doesn't seem to be any
performance hit in using the profile.
There's an inherent trade-off between accuracy (lots of patches) and
smoothness (lots of interpolation). The trade-off is different for
different devices (and in some cases, for different papers on the
same device).
You can look at average, maximum and minimum delta-e for some
population of colors, but the results will always depend on the
population of colors you choose. Unfortunately, such evidence, while
hard and scientific, tells you bugger-all about the profile's
efficacy in reproducing actual work, like (for example) photographic
images.
Bruce
--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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