[argyllcms] Re: Capture One Profiles, comment on Cruse comment.
- From: "Matthew H. Owens" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 12:26:30 -0700
Not at all the same thing... This is an interesting study from RIT including
the Cruse Museum Scanner. We did not include our standardized stray light
balancing and sharpening as part of this, which did affect the final result.
But to be fair to the study we did no post processing whatsoever. The RIT
camera, a modified Sinar camera with drop in dichroic R, G, B, filters, and the
need to take three shots, this was the only device in the study that could come
close to beating our out of the box color. A fellow member, the illustrious
Klaus Karcher, developed and lead the Cruse scanner box update, along with new,
real world icc targets made from pms inks, rare pigments found in museums and
current day pigments found in fine art. It is comprised of a very accurate 19
step screen printed grey target that ties into the final density of the printed
output and allows us to have a very precise representation of the true
luminance values of the original work of art. So close that even artists and
very skilled trained art conservators cannot easily discern the original from
the print, particularly when it comes to charcoals or pastels that have similar
base materials. Not included in the scope of this study was overall image
quality including the base noise in the image. Off the record commentary from
Dr Burns was that they were amazed at the significant difference in all areas
of overall image quality compared to all the camera equipment tested in the
study.
http://www.cis.rit.edu/DocumentLibrary/admin/uploads/CIS000129.pdf
Matthew H. Owens
Founder
Druidian Archival Service
www.druidian.org
Archival Studio +1(602)492-3770
On Jul 7, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Matthew H. Owens <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> And all of that, my friends is why I bought one of those crazy expensive
>> Cruse Museum Scanners.
>
> It involves a lot of manual labor, but you can accomplish the same thing by
> suspending the camera above the floor, repositioning the art underneath it,
> and stitching multiple frames together in Photoshop.
>
> If you're doing this sort of thing on a large commercial scale, of course,
> time-saving devices are also money-saving devices....
>
> b&
Other related posts:
