Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better?
Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better?
- Subject: Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better?
- From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:46:37 -0500
Iliah Borg wrote:
Dear Klaus,
I'm not sure what all this is about. I print with device link
profiles all the time, for many years, and I'm getting much better
results then when printing with regular profiles. More so when
repurposing CMYKs between USA and Euro, which I do routinely. But
even RGB to RGB device links are worth studying rather then simple
waving out. I use those not only with printers, but with raw
conversion process when the client wants RGB files.
Dear Marco,
ColorThink Pro is capable of generating device link profiles, though
the quality might be not as good as with DeviL.
Dear Iliah,
I don't want to belittle the advantages of device link profiles, they
are beyond question. The main advantages are improved smoothness and
precession (as they are not bound to the PCS grid) and the option to
account for the separation of the source image during the
transformation.
Clever device link profiling tools will also benefit from the fact
that both the source and destination gamut are known at the time the
device link will be created: there is no need to assume a generic
source gamut (like the PRMG) -- the gamut mapping can be optimized to
the specific combination of source- and target gamuts.
The advantage of device profiles is greater flexibility: you can link
every device profile with any other, but you separate device link
profiles for every combination of two devices: to transform between n
colorspaces in any direction, you need only n device profiles, but
n*(n-1) device link profiles.
You will never get optimal results and unlimited flexibility at the
same time using device profiles with pre-calculated gamut mappings.
There is no principal difference in gamut mapping capabilities between
device- and device link profiles: Argyll's source- and image-dependent
gamut mapping for example works with both device- and device link
profiles (whereas device profiles forfeit their flexibility). As
image- or source-dependent gamut mapping can not preserve the
flexibility of device profiles anyway, there are few reasons to use
them in this context and to renounce the advantages device link
profiles can offer.
What makes the main difference between the examples provided by Rolf
is IMHO the gamut mapping. I'm pretty sure that the device link
profile's gamut mapping is better, but this has nothing to do with
device or device link profiles in general. And to compare the results,
one should use appropriate methods.
Klaus
_______________________________________________
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