Re: HowTo? Objectively measure quality of print profiles?
Re: HowTo? Objectively measure quality of print profiles?
- Subject: Re: HowTo? Objectively measure quality of print profiles?
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 08:47:37 -0600
On May 2, 2013, at 6:28 PM, LdaSignup <email@hidden> wrote:
> Hypothetically, suppose someone claimed that profiles from ArgyllCms are typically as good or better than those from ProfileMaker-5, and almost as good as i1Profiler 1.4.2. Is that something that could be objectively measured by an automated spectro, rather than an informed, but still subjective, opinion?
Perhaps, but there are a slew of potential 'issues' with color engines that are seen faster, easier and more totally by looking at images than dE reports and the like. Output Bill Atkinson's 28 ball's image with two profiles and examine the blue ball and other balls for smoothness, reverse banding (bad) or blues shifting magenta as just one example.
Profiles don't know squat about color in context. They treat a white dog on snow the same as a black cat on coal. They treat individual color pixels without having a clue about the color image in context making both visual and number based reporting necessary.
Some of the analysis just ends up being subjective. Unless all you want to do with the profiles is solid color patches.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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