I have a Minolta FD-9 so I can take loads of measurements.
But I’m being “skeptical”? Before throwing all those “extra” neutral patches in
or before using the “default” test chart. I guess I’m trying to improve my
understanding of profiling.
Thanks for helping!
/ Roger
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Greg E
Sent: December 20, 2019 7:55 PM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Custom "non-Argyll" charts
How much does paper and ink cost? I'd try both ways and see how each works. But
I'd also want to use a good spectro to measure everything. i1 or Pulse would be
my minimum. Wish my old Spectroscan still worked. You may also want to use a
black backing behind your paper, but I'd try measuring with both black and
white backing.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 19:47 <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
wrote:
So, Greg, not a good idea?
/ Roger
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On
Behalf Of Greg E
Sent: December 20, 2019 7:43 PM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Custom "non-Argyll" charts
Talk about this topic from 15 years ago was to create a large number of
non-neutral patches near gray and a decent number of steps between black and
white. Throwing tons of "neutral" patches at it doesn't allow the routines to
calculate the fine changes that may be required to shift to neutral. If I was
printing black and white prints with a color inkset I would give this a try.
Even with multi black printers this helps unless you are using the monotone
presets for your printer.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 13:43 <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
wrote:
Suppose I want to « hand-optimize” charts, for some reason. Suppose I want to
throw in ‘extra’ color patches, here and there, like in the shadows, will this
“crash” Argyll in any way? Suppose I start with some fresh ti1 file, that I
edit to my heart’s content, leaving the header “alone”, except, the number of
“sets”, such as, instead of, say, the base number of sets of, say, 100, I type
in, NUMBER_OF_SET 135, to reflect the 35 ‘extra’ patches I wanted to add in :
DESCRIPTOR "Argyll Calibration Target chart information 1"
ORIGINATOR "Argyll targen"
CREATED "Tue Dec 17 14:40:00 2019"
APPROX_WHITE_POINT "95.106486 100.000000 108.844025"
COLOR_REP "RGB"
WHITE_COLOR_PATCHES "4"
BLACK_COLOR_PATCHES "4"
COMP_GREY_STEPS "10"
OFPS_PATCHES "84"
NUMBER_OF_FIELDS 7
BEGIN_DATA_FORMAT
SAMPLE_ID RGB_R RGB_G RGB_B XYZ_X XYZ_Y XYZ_Z
END_DATA_FORMAT
NUMBER_OF_SETS 135
Would the edited ti1 file still be “honored” by printarg? And readchart? And
would I still be able to build a profile out this unique SET combination?
Would I then have to supply the “predicted” XYZs for my ‘extra’ patches? Or
would printarg and readchart be able to “ignore” the missing information? Or be
able to “fill in the blanks” on their own?
I know, it may sound crazy but I’m experimenting with “custom charts
definitions” and I’m still not 100% clear on all targen options. I’m probably
reinventing the wheel, here? But just curious, in general, what’s the
underlying Argyll’s profiling capabilities?
With ProfileMakerPro, for example, it’s possible to submit pretty much any
kinds of charts for which we have device and ‘CIE’ values and still end up with
an ICC profile.
Best / Roger
