Re: arbitrary profiling targets
Re: arbitrary profiling targets
- Subject: Re: arbitrary profiling targets
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:08:50 -0700
In a message dated 5/20/06 9:42 AM, Dana Rasmussen wrote:
>>> That's how some people build profiles from measurements of over 10,000
>>> points, instead of your typical 1000-2000 measurement points.
>>
>> Have those people ever reported obtaining better results through such
>> "extensive" profiling targets, as opposed to using the more popular mundane
>> targets like the 928 patches IT8.7/3 or the 1485 patches ECI2002 or some
>> proprietary ones (PrintOpen 210 basic target-type, PMP TC35 400 some
>> patches, etc)? For well-behaved CMYK devices? I understand RGB output
>> devices benefit from such extended sampling techniques for which the name of
>> Atkinson immediately comes to mind. But, for what I call well-behaved
>> devices like well-maintained or new sheetfed presses, I would tend to think
>> that such extensive sampling techniques are a bit of an overkill.
>> Personally, I have need any studies in the litterature to this effect.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
>> http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
> This is a question I have too. And even in respect to RGB devices.
> I would think at some point the software creating the profile is saturated
> with data. While I can demonstrate that, at least for a wide gamut RGB
> printer, I can build a better profile with a 918 patch, than a 283 patch,
> and maybe 3600 is better than 918. Canon is using 69000 patches to create
> the profiles for the icf5000. Can the difference be seen?
> I would be very curious to hear from someone who actually understands the
> math.
Hi everyone.
Adding to that, if the precision gained is higher than the margins of error
inherent in both the measurement procedures and the device's behavior, then
it would seem to me that all that extra precision is pointless, wasting
time, ink and paper, wouldn't you agree? It would be as fruitless as humans
trying to use their ears to perceive shades of difference in acoustic
signals beyond the threshold of audibility.
What I mean to say is that there must be a point (probably different in each
case) beyond which added precision necessarily produces no perceptible
improvement in the results, because neither the spectrophotometer nor the
printing device are nearly as perfect as the mathematics involved in the
creation of the output, nor are they capable of detecting or replicating
results that are that finely-honed. The tricky thing would then be how to
determine that threshold, so that we don't waste time chasing ghosts.
Best regards.
--------------
Marco Ugolini
Mill Valley, CA
_______________________________________________
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