Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
- Subject: Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
- From: Ben Goren <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:31:12 -0700
On Jun 5, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Iliah Borg <email@hidden> wrote:
> CC24 is too small for any colorimetric accuracy anyway.
Not only that, but there's another elephant in the room. Two of them, in fact.
Essential to creating a good profile is being able to get to the unprofiled data, including before white balancing and gamma and exposure correction and what-not as well as after but before anything else has been done. Until you can get to that kind of data (which you easily can with any of the ``alternative'' raw developers), the whole issue is rather moot.
...aaaaannnnnddd...I'm not aware of any profile-building tools that know about DNG. That is, anything that can extract RGB values from a photo of a chart, compare them with expected absolute color values, and output the matrix / LUT / whatever for the DNG. That's the heart and soul of profiling, when it comes right down to it. If you don't have that, whatever you're doing isn't color profiling. (Of course, there's the tool that ships with the ColorChecker Passport, but it only uses the 24 patches -- and the same deal with Adobe's DNG Profile Editor.)
Sure, you can kinda fake it with DNG by using the eyedropper on your chart, but just for the classic ColorChecker that's an order of magnitude more work than is involved in even creating a printer profile from a chart with several thousand patches. Can you imagine the work involved in attempting to manually create a DNG profile just with all of a ColorChecker Passport's 50 patches?
Cheers,
b&
_______________________________________________
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