[argyllcms] Re: Crushed shadow details
- From: xun wang <xun911@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:40:27 -0400
I'm not sure if there is a default black point for argyllcms.
The x-rite profile is quite decent actually as far as I can tell, it's just
not nearly as flexible. At 6500k(my lcd's native now is ~5k) 100cd/m2 white
point, I see black level at 2, have a contrast ratio of ~780:1. I'm not sure
what the BP is for x-rite because it doesn't say. Using ArgyllCMS and BP
adjusted to 0.3/cdm2, I see BL from 1, but with a reduced contrast ratio of
~470:1.
On a similar note, I was originally planning to calibrate my i1 display 2
off the colormunki and use the i1d2 to get better shadow details because
everyone is saying that spectro doesn't perform as well as a colorimeter in
dark patches, I understand it's because of the increased noise. But so far
I'm not seeing any real world differences when I compared ColorMunki with
i1D2+CCMX in the shadow. I checked out the B&W gradient & examined the dark
patches in the shadow and didn't notice any conclusive differences between
the 2. What exactly should I be looking for?
I did however see higher dE in RGB gray balance when I did cross profile
verification using both to measure against each other, not sure they mean
anything, but here you go.
All settings used are the same & built using high quality setting, with only
difference in hardware. For CM I turned on Adaptive Hires & BP Drift
Compensation.
Using ColorMunki for verification:
1) CM profile: http://tinyurl.com/4yqu4km
2) i1D2 profile: http://tinyurl.com/3kgq5od
Using i1D2+CCMX for verification:
1) CM profile: http://tinyurl.com/3jncfnc
2) i1D2 profile: http://tinyurl.com/3fkhqz8
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:50 AM, tony22p <tony22p@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But Xun, to me this raises a question. If you had to raise the black
> point did you then wind up being slightly out of calibration? In other
> words, was the black point setting originally where the calibration software
> said it needed to be?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *xun wang
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2011 12:40 AM
> *To:* argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [argyllcms] Re: Crushed shadow details****
>
> ** **
>
> Never mind I see what I did wrong. All I had to do is to raise the black
> point a bit to get all the shadow details.****
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:22 PM, xun wang <xun911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:****
>
> Thanks that works!****
>
> ** **
>
> I did some some further testing and comparison, and noticed that with
> ArgyllCMS I still get less shadow details than the profile created using
> X-rite's OEM software(ICC v2). Using photoshop's curve tool, the
> lowest discernible shadow details using x-rite profile is 2. With ArgyllCMS
> profile it's 4. I don't see any noticeable color casts in the shadows by
> either profile.****
>
> I also get less gamut volume with the ArgyllCMS: 1,114,180 vs 1,087.920***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Below is the DispcalGUI screenshot for the settings I used, please let me
> know if there're anything I haven't optimized. Because I would really love
> to use ArgyllCMS for my main calibration tool for its powerful features and
> flexibilty. But for now the x-rite OEM software seems to give superior
> result yet taking a fraction of the time.****
>
> ** **
>
> DispcalGUI setting screen shot: http://tinyurl.com/3vw7o9y****
>
> ** **
>
> I also ran "Very Profile", I'm not entirely sure but it also seems to agree
> that the x-rite profile is oeverall slightly more accurate?****
>
> x-rite profile verification: http://tinyurl.com/44eptzd****
>
> argyllcms profile verification: http://tinyurl.com/4yqu4km****
>
> ** **
>
> Any help and inputs are greatly appreciated!****
>
> ** **
>
> Xun****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Florian Höch <lists+argyllcms@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:****
>
> Am 09.09.2011 20:28, schrieb xun wang:****
>
> ** **
>
> Is there anyway I could create a "single gamma + matrix" file for
> Colormunki using the existing saved calculation data without running
> through the "Calibreate & profile" process again? it's painfully slow
> when I use "adaptive hires" + Black Drift Compensation for the Colormunki.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, you can use the existing ColorMunki data to create a new profile from
> it. (using the commandline tools, give the existing .ti3 as last argument to
> colprof. Or if you use dispcalGUI, set the desired profile type, then in the
> "Options" menu -> "Create profile from measurement data...", then select the
> .ti3 file)
>
> --
> Florian Höch
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
Other related posts:
