[argyllcms] Re: ICC-profile shift histograms
- From: "Roger Breton" <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:04:22 -0400
I think you got the idea ;-)
Sorry for insisting.
'fG / Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hermann-Josef Röser
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:15 AM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: ICC-profile shift histograms
Good morning Roger,
... , to my knowledge, states that, 120 or 140 or 150 or 160 should
give
you more or less the same XYZ/Lab values because it's all driven by the IT8
Referenz values.
This is how profiling is set up: the Lab/XYZ-values as specified in the
reference table are reproduced -- to within the accuracy of the model. But
this is not denied by my argument. I only cheat a little bit in that I use a
profile with exposure time X for a scan taken with exposure time Y. That is
all. I know, that profile X does not exactly represent the scan with
exposure time Y. But if I prefer the results for this or that reason, why
not? Of course, for a target scan with exposure time Y the profile derived
from a scan with exposure time X will not result in the L values given by
the reference table but be different according to the change in exposure
time. The values for a and b should be more or less untouched by this
procedure. This is what I see visually in the rendered images.
Best wishes
Hermann-Josef
Other related posts:
