[argyllcms] Re: Camera calibration: LUT only as good as matrix?
- From: edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:25:20 +0200
Iliah, I would agree with anyone who thinks UV filters etc will impact the
camera observer functions etc. In fact, I would be very surprised if there
were *not* strong goniometric wavelength-dependent absorption differences
at the level of the filter package.
Edmund
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Iliah Borg <iliah.i.borg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Edmund,
>
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 11:14 AM, edmund ronald wrote:
>
> > Of course I have little to say in such august company
>
> We are still in july ;)
>
> > , but my practical experience with camera profiling in days long past
> leads me to believe that camera linearity is not a big problem these days
> with the high-end equipment and stately shooting speed people in art repro
> will be using.
>
> Have you looked at the comparison of how a camera follows a matrix profile
> depending on the light spectrum?
> From one of my previous,
> " A ColorChecker SG card, shot with D4 under halogen lights, first time no
> filter on lens, second time with B&W KB15 (80A) color conversion filter on
> the lens. Matrix profiles were calculated from both shots, for delta E 2000
> reports see .csv files in
> http://cl.ly/3x3F0D2p0e3K/D4_16-35_SG_Halogen_dE2000.zip";
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Iliah Borg
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
