RE: this post I made a while back, another little mistake I made is that I actually have a Pentium *4*, not a Pentium 5. Sigh. ;^) (I guess you knew this anyway) I exit the IT industry and I immediately become clueless. :) Cheers, Greg. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sullivan [mailto:greg.sullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 00:38 To: 'argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: [argyllcms] Re: Question regarding gamut mapping for photographic images RE: below, I've just realised that I made a silly mistake. My PC is actually 2.4GHz Pentium, *not* 1GHz, which was my previous machine. Doh. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sullivan [mailto:greg.sullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, 24 July 2005 04:51 To: 'argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: [argyllcms] Re: Question regarding gamut mapping for photographic images 2 hours 26 minutes when the perceptual tables are included. Graeme - I will email the ti3 and commands. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sullivan [mailto:greg.sullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, 23 July 2005 21:56 To: 'argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: [argyllcms] Re: Question regarding gamut mapping for photographic images Graeme, >> Without the perceptual table creation, a "high" quality >> profile is quite quick to create. (feels like a few minutes, haven't >> timed it) Adding the perceptual tables added between 1 and 2 *hours*, >> I think, including perceptual saturation tables. FWIW, patches = 3000, >> and platform >> is a 1GHz Pentium V, 1GB memory, and is running Windows XP. > Hmm. That's more than I would have imagined. I haven't noticed such a > dramatic slowdown with the change you mention. Perhaps if you sent > me the .ti3 and the options you used, I can take a look at it. I was mistaken. Without the perceptual tables, a high quality profile creation takes about 17 minutes. I haven't re-timed the operation when perceptual tables are included yet. Thanks for all the other info. Greg.