> Dear Nikolay! > > > You should check Your profile by the other set of points, than the > > profile built. > Thank you for your suggestion. > > I do fully agree with the approach you proposed! Unfortunately I do not know > how I > should deal with that... Do you know of any way of generating the > testing points that would be different from 2000 points I used when > generating the profile? I have the .ti1 and .ti3 files used to > generate the profile. > For example: 1. You have successfully built the profile from 2000 points. It's OK. The name of profile "Profile.icc" for example. 2. You need to generate a test set. The best of all, IMHO, will be uniform perceptual spread over Your device gamut, so targen is needed: targen -v -d3 -f 100 -e 1 -c "Great.icm" -I -w Test_100 Now You have another "Test_100.ti1", which contain 100 test patches, most of them are unmatched with Your original 2000-patches of "Profile.ti1". It's Your validation set. 3. You have to measure the test set in the same conditions, as profile work: dispread -v -yl -k "Profile.cal" Test_100 Now You have the measured validation data "Test_100.ti3" 4. You do the validation of Your profile: profcheck -k -x -w -e Test_100.ti3 Profile.icc Now Your 2000-point profile have checked by another 100 (92) test points! The result of profcheck reflects the real profile quality. 5. After all You can combine Profile.ti3 and Test_100.ti3 files into one 2100.ti3 without any measurements. Just by adding 100-patches dataset after 2000 patches of Your original *.ti3. Don't forget to change NUMBER_OF_SETS value to 2100 :) . If You do the 2100-points profiling again with the same parameters as initially, the new profile need not a new validation. It's errors will be within the validation result at 4-th point. It's my workflow. Any comments, suggestions?