[argyllcms] Re: Custom illumination
- From: Klaus Kompatscher <kkompatscher@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:18:44 +0100
Yes I confirm your thoughts,
Relative shows little difference absolute is ways off.
Thanks
Klaus
On 19.01.2010 18:26 Uhr, "Gerhard Fuernkranz" <nospam456@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Klaus Kompatscher wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> Did try to create profile for custom illumination:
>> - Measured light with I1 with special diffuser; Got measurements in cxf
>> format (file attached)ite
>> - Made a profile with Profile Maker White point looks good
>> - Copied spectral values to ref. D50_1.5.sp file and renamed DalTile...
>> (file attached)
>> - made a profile ./colprof -v -i
>> /Applications/Argyll_V1.1.0/ref/DalTileLichtI1.sp -kp 0 .3 1 1 .8 -r 2 -L
>> 100 -l 280 G60_G07_5cc
>>
>> White point calculated by Argyll is fare off from the real.
>> Visually it does not correspond at all.
>> PM white point: Lab 87 0 2
>> Argyll white point: Lab 88 5 30
>>
>
> I guess this is likely once again caused by different interpretations of
> different profile vendors regarding how the the media white point should
> be recorded in (V2) profiles; i.e. whether to record the absolute XYZ of
> media white under the given illuminant versus recording the
> illuminant-to-D50-adapted XYZ numbers. As long as the light source is
> D50, there won't be a difference, but your light source is a different
> one...
>
> If my assumption is true, then visually I'd only expect a huge
> difference for absolute intent, but I'd not expect so much difference
> between the two profiles when applying them with relative colorimetric
> intent.
>
> Regards,
> Gerhard
>
>> I also tried to interpolate the spectral values to get 5 nm steps from 370
>> to 730 but did not change anything.
>>
>> Why this big difference?
>> What means Spectral_Norm in the Spectral illumination file?
>>
>> Thanks for any help
>>
>> Klaus Kompatscher
>>
>
Other related posts:
