CMM benchmark/features
Hi all, 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…? 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? Or is this up to the creator of a device link profile and the CMM ‘dumbly’ applies the device link profile to the raster data without even thinking about it? If so, is this true for all CMMs mentioned above and how can I test this? Thanks Claudio
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.
participants (2)
-
Claudio Wilmanns
-
Graeme Gill