Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290
- From: Chris Cox <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:45:30 -0700
- Thread-topic: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290
Uli;
I'm sorry, I really don't see how you came to that conclusion.
You tested profiles designed to match the Canon rendering - and they did.
You tested it in a single light source situation (because ICC profiles
cannot handle multiple light sources correctly) and concluded that they are
very close.
But the DNG Profiles are needed partly because ICC profiles are limited to a
single illuminant and cannot work with multiple illuminants (at least not
across multiple RAW development systems - some do have hacks to handle the
illuminant outside the profile, partly defeating the purpose of the profile
and giving wildly different results with the same profile).
But you did no testing to see if DNG profiles could exceed the
quality/accuracy of the default rendering... and then conclude that they
can't. That doesn't follow at all.
Either you are drawing some bad conclusions, or you are failing to tell us
about all of your testing. At best, I think that all you could reasonably
say based on your stated testing is that the DNG profiles match the Canon
rendering to within a certain deltaE.
Chris
On 9/6/08 5:05 PM, "email@hidden"
<email@hidden> wrote:
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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