On 2006 May 1, at 9:59 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote: > >> First, I've read much of the documentation and searched the >> list archives for relevant stuff. Yes, I know that the i1 isn't >> directly supported by Argyll and that there aren't any plans to >> add such support in the future. Frankly, if it weren't so >> (relatively) inexpensive and I not so poor, I would have >> gotten some other instrument that /is/ supported and whose >> manufacturer is more generous with documentation. But...I'm >> poor. > > The trouble with the Eye1 is that either [. . .]
Exactly what I figured. I don't have the skills to hack the data format and I don't have the money to buy one to send to you. I don't think I'll ever get the former, but I'll chip at least a couple pennies into a fund for the latter after my bank account recovers from the serious blow I dealt it in buying the i1 in the first place....
I'll also drop a note to the salescritter at Chromix who sold me the i1. He had some good money-saving suggestions, and I think I might be able to convince him that getting specs to you will probably sell a respectable number of i1s that wouldn't otherwise get sold--and without cutting into their upgrade sales, either. Quite the contrary, if anything--I'm going for Argyll because of the quality and my lack of money; but anybody with the money isn't likely to want to mess around with a command-line tool in this point-n-click era.
I rather suspect that the folks at Greytag Macbeth will listen to somebody at Chromix much more attentively than any of us.
>> otherwise unmodified.) Unfortunately, the profile wasn't even >> in the ballpark--it looked like somebody scribbled with the >> pencil in a curves adjustment in Photoshop. > > What did profile (or profcheck) report as the fit error ? This > is usually the givaway as to whether the patches got mixed up.
To be honest...I couldn't tell you. I wasn't paying attention.
But it's now a moot point--thanks to David, I've got it all working! (There's a minor nitpick that has me using ColorPort to generate the printable version of the target rather than Argyll. I much prefer Argyll's layout [much higher patch density], but I can live with that for the moment). I'll post a summary write-up sometime tomorrow.
>> I've also tried to use ColorPort, and quickly discovered that >> the output file needs to be massaged rather extensively. I >> tried to compile David Gangola's cpxchg, but all I found was >> the one he posted to the list...and that needs a couple >> #include files that I didn't find. ColorPort ``feels'' like >> the superior tool of the two, but I'd almost put up with >> hand-transcribing readouts from Eye-One Share at this point, if >> that's what it took to get started on the right path. > > If someone would send me a couple of colorport files, then I'd > be happy to see if logo2cgats can be modified to accept those > files as well. It doesn't sound hard.
I doubt you'll have any trouble with it. The worst part is scaling the color values; ColorPort expects them to be 0 - 255 rather than 0 - 100. Plus, David's cpxchg should be a good reference. He even GPL'ed it, if you want to be lazy.
What kinds of files would you like? I'd be more than happy to send you whatever I can.
...tomorrow. After some sleep....