[argyllcms] Re: ArgyllCMS: shadow details and blue color issues. What I'm doing incorrectly?
- From: Nikolay Pokhilchenko <nikolay_po@xxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:59:28 +0400
The results are disappointing. I hoped to see dE about 0,35-1,2. Delta of 4..9
are enormous for inkjet printer in order.
There is some source of the error. May be You poorly washed the head and ink
path in the printer while changing the inks? There is obvious difference in
printing process between initial target MP_B01_396p64g3bArgyllv140_121011.ti3
and this small target. This is typical for the case when the inks was changed
and the profiling target was printed with ink mixture (not so pure inks).
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:32:29 +0200 ÐÑ "Xavi" <aruiz@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi Nikolay.
>Â
>Thank you for doing a ti3 file forÂmeÂto try to
check that everything is correct on my case.
>Â
>I have resized a little your tiff file because I have a
colormunki and the size of the patches were too small.
>Â
>The patch 29,14,50 [Lab] is out of gamut but the original
patch that I print is diferent. The original was the blue color patch of the
simulation color checker chart: 29,14,-50 [Lab]
>Â
>I haven't modified the colors of your file. Only the size to
be read with CM.
>Â
>I have printed yout test4.tif using the ACPU utility from
Adobe and exactly the same media settings (I have recorded them as a preset).
The test target was also printed with ACPU. I use ACPU because after some
tests,
seems that ACPU prints different than the PS CS4 disabling color
management.
>Â
>I have let dry for about 8 hours and I have read it using
the same spectroÂthat was used for reading the test patches, and on strip
mode.
>Â
>The results of the verify.exe command
are:
>Â
>
>..\..\verify.exe -v -D
test4_grans_ACPU_2.ti3 Test4_fakeread.
>ti3
>No of test patches =
4
>1: 55.685061 1.050502 1.474861
<=> 50.000000 -0.000200 -0.000300Â de 5.966573
>2: 50.098214 15.311162 47.347346
<=> 46.397000 13.620000 42.779000Â de 6.117908
>3: 83.059447 2.768188 76.146682
<=> 82.000000 4.000400 80.000000Â de 4.181966
>4: 43.876601 14.647638 20.301919
<=> 38.000000 14.000000 14.000000Â de 8.641068
>No of test patches in worst 10%
are = 0
>No of test patches in best 90%
are = 4
>Verify results:
>Â Total errors:ÂÂÂÂ peak = 8.641068, avg =
6.226878
>Â Worst 10% errors: peak = 0.000000, avg =
0.000000
> Best 90% errors: peak = 8.641068, avg =
6.226878
>Â
>Are the expected results? If not, when do you think that can
be the issue?
>Â
>I attach the used ti3 file.
>Â
>Thank you for your appreciate help.
>Â
>Best Regards,
>Xavi.
>Â
>Â
>
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>De: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Nikolay
Pokhilchenko
>Enviado el: miÃrcoles, 24 de octubre de 2012
8:39
>Para: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Asunto: [argyllcms] Re:
ArgyllCMS: shadow details and blue color issues. What I'm doing
incorrectly?
>
>
>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:06:02 +0200 "Xavi" wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Then, on Photoshop I create 4
rectangles, that I fill, one by one, with the
>>RGB values obtained. I save
them on Tiff format and I print the file with
>>the same program and the same
printing options that I have used to print the
>>test
chart.Hello, Xavi!
>I think You can
introduce the error at this stage because there may be a difference between
AgyllCMS chart image generation and the Photoshop.
>Try to print the target in
attached Test4.zip the same way as You have printed the targets for
MP_B01_396p64g3bArgyllv140_121011.ti3.
>Then read the chart the same way as
You've read MP_B01_396p64g3bArgyllv140_121011.ti3 (I'd recommend the reading in
the strip mode, not patch-by-patch).
>After reading, compare the
targets:
>
>verify.exe -v Test4.ti3 Test4_fakeread.ti3
>And You'll see
actual workflow errors.
>
>By the way, the patch 29.000000 14.000000
50.000000 [Lab] is out-of-gamut for Your printer. You can't check the tolerance
by out-of-gamut colors. So, it's Lab value was replaced by the nearest possible
(by xicclu -fif then -ff): 46.397 13.620 42.779
Other related posts:
