Re: Photogamut
Re: Photogamut
- Subject: Re: Photogamut
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:30:00 -0500
> not my little Canon though.
Oh? ColorThink shows that PhotoGamut almost completely encloses my Canon
i960, here, on Glossy media? Not a whole lot missing, just a small edge in
the ligther cyans. And the same could be said for my Epson4000 UC like I
alread mentioned. But there it's a small edge in the yellow, and a small
edge in the cyan as well. I guess if they could make their gamut a little
larger, that would help. But let's not forget that, at its present size, it
is more than adequate to fully enclose *all* the photographic spaces I've
seen so far. No need for a matrix/shaper space for that purpose. Unless,
like you said, it is lumping tones together in the 1/4 tones up. I think a
quick visit to Ed Granger's Rainbow will show that.
> The real test will be
> what conversions from these huge input spaces look like, that continues
> to be another ongoing problem.
Well, in principle, in should not clip.
As for perceptual profiling, my understanding is that the *better* packages
out there, today, do an "intelligent" mapping, keeping saturated color as
saturated as possible toward the edges -- not just implementing a brute
force compression across the border because perceptual is "suppose" to
compress. And the same thing can be said for some packages which, clearly,
don't strictly adhere by the "rules" of colorimetric rendering.
Not a perfect world -- one day, we'll all be driving solar cars and we'll
have all the money in the world to buy the best spectros and software, take
vacations at the other end of the planet, ... ;-)
> Tyler
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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