Re: Monitor profile verification [was: Eye One Pro for monitor calibration? [was: Re: NEC 2690 SpectraView]]
Re: Monitor profile verification [was: Eye One Pro for monitor calibration? [was: Re: NEC 2690 SpectraView]]
- Subject: Re: Monitor profile verification [was: Eye One Pro for monitor calibration? [was: Re: NEC 2690 SpectraView]]
- From: "edmund ronald" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 02:53:19 +0100
Graeme -
no bleedthrough/crosstalk on TFTs ?
Edmund
On Dec 3, 2007 2:40 AM, Graeme Gill <email@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Rich wrote:
> > And if I am understanding your points about L*a*b* and monitor profiles, it
> > is very common with monitor profiles to use XYZ instead of L*a* b*.
>
> Almost always, because displays have often close to perfect additive
> behaviour. This means that a shaper + matrix in XYZ space often
> models display behaviour quite accurately, and CLUTs in XYZ space
> will also be similarly accurate. [There are disadvantages in shaper/matrix
> when it comes down to supporting intents, and it can be difficult
> sometimes to arrange a B2A table to be much good when its in XYZ
> space too.]
>
> None of this has any baring on verifying profile accuracy.
>
> Graeme Gill.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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