Re: Media Testing for maclife.de (was: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290)
Re: Media Testing for maclife.de (was: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290)
- Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de (was: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290)
- From: MARK SEGAL <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Edmund,
re (1) Agreed, it's not a dumb argument - even credible. But its implications are not necessarily conclusive from that argument alone. If they were conclusive, it would imply that there is sufficient performance variability between samples of the same camera model (even higher end prosumer and pro models) to defy any third-party (non camera manufacturer) attempt at creating a generically accurate profile - or let's say as accurate as the state of the profiling science allows them to be.
Re (2) I have no reason to doubt your relative satisfaction with the procedures you describe, but what I was interested in exploring is whether you found DPP to be more "accurate" out of the box compared with LR2 using a standard test image such as a CC24.
Mark
----- Original Message ----
From: edmund ronald <email@hidden>
To: MARK SEGAL <email@hidden>
Cc: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>; ColorSync Mailing <email@hidden>; Chris Cox <email@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 9:37:49 AM
Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de (was: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 290)
Mark,
Canon know what sensor they build into a given sample of a camera. If
they have to change something during production eg. the sensor is
from a different batch, they burn the information into the camera ROM,
I believe. DPP has access to this private calibration information, and
will extract it from the file when attempting to convert. Third party
converters that do not have access to ROM calibration info will just
treat every camera like the original samples which were initially
tested to write the software.
I have talked to camera guys -not Canon- about this, and they have
confirmed that they establish calibrations for every batch of sensors,
and this information goes into the files written by the camera.
I don't thing it's a dumb argument to say that a camera manufacturer
knows their own camera best.
(2) Doesn't make much sense to me. I have some files in my archives
where the old versions of ACR failed spectacularly, but the software
has evolved a lot since CS2. My routine at that point was to use ACR
for the big patches of hundreds of runway images, and DPP for the few
images which went full page. The last two years I have used Leica and
Phase much more than Canon, and so have had little reason to use ACR
on my own work. C1 yields good color when used with Phase, again
because it is the manufacturer's converter.
Edmund
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:18 PM, MARK SEGAL <email@hidden> wrote:
> Edmund,
>
> Two questions:
>
> (1) In what ways does Canon's private info from the ROM give their profiles
> a heads-up over the procedure Adobe employs for the construction of camera
> profiles? Or put otherwise, what aspects of Adobe's procedures, not having
> that information directly, necessarily yield a less accurate profile than
> those Canon constructs using its "private info"?
>
> (2) Can you publish test results for a standard, well-known photograph (or a
> GMB 24-CC) showing in what respects an out-of-the-box rendition of the same
> file from DPP is superior to the same from LR2?
>
> Mark
_______________________________________________
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