Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 23:46:33 +0200
Am 06.09.2008 um 22:23 schrieb Paul Foerts:
We have witnessed the lack of cooperation/information on the subject
Uli was researching (he got as far as we understand outdated/
incomplete software/information from Adobe)...
While I have promised to shut up as far as this heated argument was
concerned, let me just clear things up with regard to this:
It turns out that the new Adobe profiles Andrew referred to are still
labeled as "beta". It is common practice that beta versions are *not*
used for the kind of review I was doing, because publishing possibly
bad results would be unfair. I assume that this is why Adobe didn't
send me the profiles in the first place, but if they did, I couldn't
have used them for the official review, anyway.
However, I've downloaded them in the meantime and ran them through my
tests. Here's what I found (in short form, since I'm in a hurry right
now):
The new "Adobe Standard" profile is indeed better than the ACR 4.4
one. It's pretty much the same improvement that I got from building my
own profile with the Adobe DNG profile editor (roughly mean delta E 9
instead of 10, averaged over the 7 lighting scenarios of my test).
On the other hand, the new Adobe profiles that are assumed to simulate
the camera vendor's profiles seem to do a pretty good job, if my test
is any indication. From the Canon "picture styles" for my EOS 40D, I
compared the "Faithful" profile, as it delivered the best metrological
results.
delta E mean/max between the original Canon "Faithful" setting and
Adobe's simulated "Canon Faithful" profile was 1.58/4.02 (again,
averaged over the 7 lighting scenarios of my test); for all intents
and purposes, you can thus say they are more or less identical. Both
profiles achieve a delta E of roughly 8 (as compared to 9 from Adobe's
new Standard profile and 10 from Adobe's current ACR 4.4 profile)
So, if this case is representative, with the "Camera Profiles" that
emulate the original camera settings, Lightroom is approaching the
best default quality of the camera settings, which certainly is nice
in the case of my test camera, as Canon's original app is clunky.
(Aperture can't do this and achieves a delta E of roughly 9).
On the other hand, this also means that Adobe, with its proprietary
technology, still can't improve on the best Canon factory profile,
which, as you might remember, is a standard ICC profile.
If you consider that with a custom ICC profile built by ProfileMaker,
you can achieve a delta E of 6 (instead of the 8-10 from above), it's
still obvious why something is missing as long as applications like
Lightroom don't offer the option to use custom ICC profiles.
On a related noted, I also performed initial tests with RAW developer,
which Edmund pointed out to me as another ICC profile compatible RAW
converter in addition to Capture One PRO. I found that ProfileMaker
profiles perform almost as good with RAW Developer as with Capture One
PRO. While Capture One PRO has a lot of features RAW Developer hasn't,
this is good news for people who only need an ICC profile compatible
Raw converter. After all, RAW Developer only costs 1/5 of Capture One
PRO.
Bye
Uli
________________________________________________________
Uli Zappe, Solmsstraße 5, D-65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
http://www.ritual.org
Fon: +49-700-ULIZAPPE
Fax: +49-700-ZAPPEFAX
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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