[argyllcms] Re: Determining proper error value for -r

Ben Goren wrote:

Might I ask, what do you use  to look at the gamut surface? Do you
think  OS X's  ColorSync  utility  would be  sufficient,  or do  I
need something  with a  higher resolution? I've never  noticed any
irregularities when  looking at  the 3-D graph  of the  profile in
ColorSync, which is why I ask.


I'm not sure about the colorsync utility. I've glanced at it,
but not compared it to what I normally use in any detail.

Normally I'd use argyll/iccgamut -w, and view the .vrml using
cosmo on MSWindows, or Cortona on the Mac.

It could  also be that I  don't know what I'm  looking for. I just
enlarged the graph  in ColorSync, and my profiles  do look bumpier
than, for example, Canon's...but I  suspect that it's not the best
tool to examine profiles for this sort of thing.


Like I said, I used 39 test patches from an Argyll 39-patch chart,
with eight copies of each patch.


OK, seems pretty reasonable then. The real overhead is in making
several separate prints to exercise that source of error.

If the number really is at least reasonably close, I'll repeat the
experiment with more patch samples  and on different papers to see
how reliable an indicator this is.


See how the gamut surface varies with -r values near the one you've
calculated.

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: