Ben Goren wrote:
Might I ask, what do you use to look at the gamut surface? Do you think OS X's ColorSync utility would be sufficient, or do I need something with a higher resolution? I've never noticed any irregularities when looking at the 3-D graph of the profile in ColorSync, which is why I ask.
I'm not sure about the colorsync utility. I've glanced at it, but not compared it to what I normally use in any detail.
Normally I'd use argyll/iccgamut -w, and view the .vrml using cosmo on MSWindows, or Cortona on the Mac.
It could also be that I don't know what I'm looking for. I just enlarged the graph in ColorSync, and my profiles do look bumpier than, for example, Canon's...but I suspect that it's not the best tool to examine profiles for this sort of thing.
Like I said, I used 39 test patches from an Argyll 39-patch chart, with eight copies of each patch.
OK, seems pretty reasonable then. The real overhead is in making several separate prints to exercise that source of error.
If the number really is at least reasonably close, I'll repeat the experiment with more patch samples and on different papers to see how reliable an indicator this is.
See how the gamut surface varies with -r values near the one you've calculated.
Graeme Gill.