• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: maclife.de
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: maclife.de


  • Subject: Re: maclife.de
  • From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:45:27 +1000

Uli Zappe wrote:

Just FYI, SilverFast, OTOH, does not expand luminosity at all in the perceptual intent (in fact, there simply is no different perceptual intent in these profiles), making the images always look dim, but they never clip. So SilverFast was also deducted 0.5 points for the opposite reason, or else it would have been on par with the Logo profiles. The Logo profiles seem to hit the sweet spot in between.

You can choose whether to create an "always absolute intent" profile using the -u flag in Argyll, rather than the default relative colorimetric intent table, the former having the benefit of more L*a*b* PCS headroom for clipping. See <http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/colprof.html#u>

The delta E values of the Monaco profiles and Argyll are certainly not bad, it's just that the Logo profiles are better.

Self fit error is not a good measure of ultimate quality, since it assumes that the data set is a perfect representation of the device behavior, which it is not, since it is sparsely sampled and contains measurement uncertainty (noise).

A more rigorous measure would be to use a much higher
resolution test chart (say 5 to 10 x as many test points) as the
reference, removing from it the test points used to create the
profile. The test set is then an independent test that
gives a better measure of how well the profile represents the
underlying device characteristics. Even this approach has its
drawbacks, since the reference points also contain a lot of noise,
making evaluation indistinct.

Note that (paradoxically) a profile that has a poorer self fit
measure may in fact be a better fit to the underlying device
characteristic, because it has smoothed out some of the noise
in the measurement values, and conversely, a profile that has
a very low self fit error may be a worse match to the underlying
device, since it is slavishly following noise in the measurement
set, and may not be applying a reasonable model in between these
points to generate the interpolated values.

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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: maclife.de
      • From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: maclife.de (From: Eldon <email@hidden>)
 >Re: maclife.de (From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>)
 >Re: maclife.de (From: Eldon <email@hidden>)
 >Re: maclife.de (From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: HP dreamcolor screen, any opinions?
  • Next by Date: Re: HP dreamcolor screen, any opinions?
  • Previous by thread: Re: maclife.de
  • Next by thread: Re: maclife.de
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread