Re: CMM benchmark/features
Re: CMM benchmark/features
- Subject: Re: CMM benchmark/features
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:16:19 +1000
Claudio Wilmanns wrote:
> does somebody know of a benchmark (speed, accuracy,…) and/or a feature
> comparison/limitations of current CMMs? For example ColorSync, Adobe CMM, littleCMS2,
> Argyll CMS, others…?
Various informal benchmarks have been done at times - for instance
I know Marti has kept a close eye on how LCMS compares with Adobe
WRT accuracy, and at one stage I did some benchmarking of Argyll's
CMM against LCMS WRT to speed, but I'm not aware of any comprehensive
benchmarks.
> Is ink purity preserving or multichannel support something that the CMMs offer out of
> the box or do these need to be implemented as a special features on top of the CMM as
> separate processing (by bypassing the CMM) or by extending the CMM capabilities?
Classic CMM's are not capable of such things - they just link the profiles
and transform the pixels.
LCMS has added some on-the-fly features like that, and Adobe's BPC is of a similar
nature. In ArgyllCMS I reserve such features to device link generation, since
that allows much more processing time (hence sophistication) than what is expected
of a CMM.
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
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