[argyllcms] Re: Camera matrix profile, adding ti3 perfect white data set

  • From: edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:47:15 +0100

My experience is that pragmatically the only way to solve flare and
camera metamerism issues is to manually edit profiles.

Edmund

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gerhard Fuernkranz wrote:
>>
>> behavior of the camera with a matrix-only model. IMO it may indeed make
>> sense not to attempt to fit the flare in the measurements, but rather
>> use a more constrained model which rather prevents fitting the flare,
>> because flare depends on the captured scene, having a different
>> intensity and color at each pixel of the image. The way how the RGB
>
> So in principle the normal models will attempt to model and therefore
> remove flare captured in the scene, although the flare removal
> may not be terribly accurate.
>
> In the next release I've added a new option "colprof -am" to create
> a matrix only profile (ie. gamma = 1.0), since it may be useful
> for calibrating raw input devices where the sensor linearity
> can be assumed, and it's not desirable to remove flare :-)
>
> I also notice that there is a bug in V1.1.0 for matrix input
> profiles where the correct white point value is not being written
> (this bug was introduced in adding support for the XYZ cLUT
> display + matrix profile type).
>
> Graeme Gill.
>
>

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. argyllcms
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2010