[argyllcms] Re: ArgyllCMS V1.1.0 RC1 is now available

  • From: Gerhard Fuernkranz <nospam456@xxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:08:04 +0100

Alastair M. Robinson wrote:
> True enough.  I guess my difficulty is in finding an objective
> criteria for where to limit individual channels.  If you let them go
> just shy of saturation (as per what I think you meant by "usable
> range") then there's no "headroom" for combination colours, and the
> TAC for profiling would then need to be 100%.  If the usable range
> should be narrower than that, then how best to choose the limit?  And
> the hue drift as ink coverage increases is the criteria I currently
> use in GPLin for this. 

Well, I'd start here: What are actually the impacts if the "usable
range" has been defined either too small or too large? And which of
these impacts are so obstructive that they need to be relieved? It
certainly won't make sense to retain a range which does not
significantly contribute to the gamut volume any more. And a too small
"usable range" will reduce the gamut volume. But is a hue drift with
increasing ink coverage really a problem? If yes, why? Or is it really a
problem if a single channel driven at 100% of the "usable range" can
already saturate the paper so that the allowable TAC for overprints
needs to be as low as 100%? [possibly - one would need to check the
shape of the gamut hull to see if it still looks "well-behaved" or not].
Any other objective impacts that come into your mind?


Other related posts: