I profile for each of the three prime lenses I regularly use ;-)So, if I can't get one of your homemade targets (?), the Colorchecker SG seems like the way to go, right. Only how does it compare to a custom measured, high quality inkjet printed target from CMP-color?
nino On 8/11/2011 4:39 AM, Iliah Borg wrote:
Yes, it does use real-world pigments. So do my self-made and self-measured targets based on mineral pigments and samples of flowers, leaves, etc. - and while CC targets are based on 6 mixed mineral pigments at best you can use 20 to 30 pigments easily. Current cameras are pretty linear and - for better or for worse - follow Luther-Ives conditions closely. That means - a good matrix profile is all one needs. LUT-based profiles do more harm than good in my experience. There are so many factors that affect colour, such as the lens and the lens filter that it is really no point in sweating it trying to solve half of a problem. On Aug 10, 2011, at 9:28 PM, nino loss wrote:I think the Colorchecker SG uses real world pigments for the patches (instead of a mixture of a few for the whole target). That should, as I understand, greatly improve the issues with metamerism. I read that the CMP-color target is a inkjet print. nino On 8/8/2011 9:21 AM, Guy K. Kloss wrote:On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:36:42 PM nino loss wrote:What would be in favor of the ColorChecker SG? The semi gloss?For me it was definitely a question of price. ColorChecker SG was quite pricey. The Digital Target by CMP was (I believe) EUR 95, the Wolf Faust C1 was only EUR 25, whereas the Xrite ColorChecker SG is ~ EUR 270. Funding is tight in New Zealand, so we've opted for the "normal" ColorChecker (24 patch, which we needed anyway) plus the Wolf Faust and Christophe Metarie targets, giving us three options. And reviews I've read before the purchase were very positive for the Digital Target by CMP. Guy-- Iliah Borg ib@xxxxxxxxxxx