[argyllcms] Re: Use of calibrated display to profile digital camera
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:12:55 -0700
On 2008 Jul 27, at 12:45 AM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> The issue with using a printer is similar to a photographic
> target like the IT8 - the patches are composed of 3 or more
> primary inks, and therefore may not represent the spectral
> composition that you want to capture in the real world (but how
> do you know what that will be anyway ?).
That's the marketing / sales pitch behind the ColorChecker (at
least, the 24-patch one) -- ``carefully selected'' pigments that
simulate real-world objects.
I'll have to check again, but I remember that the frequency plots
of the patches are all very simple -- steep bell-curve peaks, or
a single transition from low reflectance to high. Except the
neutrals, of course.
> But they won't be as radically different as a display device
> though.
That's good to know.
> The more your capture device resembles the human eye in terms of
> its spectral response (the Luther condition), the fewer problems
> there will be with this aspect anyway.
That's even better to know.
It sounds like the 12-ink printers probably actually /are/ ``good
enough,'' and that my humble 8-ink Canon i9900 is probably a good
source for a majority of the patches.
I'm thinking that I'll have to take the i1 and the laptop on an
excursion....
Cheers,
b&
Other related posts:
