[argyllcms] Re: Verifying profile quality of LUT-based scanner and printer profiles

Milton Taylor wrote:

Interesting. Intuitively one would expect that more resolution = better, but as you say this is not always the case. So I presume if the avg dE and peak is not that much different between -qm and -qh or -qu then better to go with -qm? Would you say this applies to scanner profiles as well? 

There are certainly situations in which -qh can improve things a little,
particularly when doing proofing, where the last delta E is critical.
The main reason for -qu existing, is that the only way to know you
are at the optimum point, is to go one step too far!
Often -qu is unreasonably slow (to generate a profile). For some devices,
-qh is unreasonably slow too.

Also, should the -r 1.0 recommendation be used when creating printer profiles as well as scanner profiles? 

For the moment, yes. Or better yet, try a couple of different settings,
and see how the gamut surfaces compare.

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: