[argyllcms] Re: First experiments with EyeOne II on windows
- From: Craig Ringer <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:51:03 +0900
Andreas Siegert wrote:
When playing around I also noticed the size of the profiles is quite
different (<1K for Eye-One Match, 4K for ArgyllCMS). Guess that is a
result of specifying a high number of patches...
I'm pretty sure the i1Match software produces a matrix/shaper profile
for displays, where Argyll will by default produce a medium sized CLUT
based profile. My understanding is that the CLUT profile is more
accurate (much more if you use enough swatches) but considerably larger
and slower than a matrix/shaper profile.
I've certainly noticed that if I use an Argyll-generated profile
(without forcing production of a matrix/shaper profile) then apps like
Firefox 3.0 (with colour management enabled) are considerably slower
than they are with the i1Match matrix/shaper profile. The results seem
to be very nice with Argyll's profile, though, very smooth and even
despite the fact that my laptop's display is miles from the target D65
whitepoint and needs heavy LUT-based adjustment.
I tried loading the EyeOne profile with dispwin, but that did not
work. What is the quickest way to load the profile (actually the LUT
parts) of non Argyll generated pofiles?
i1Match comes with a profile loader application. It'll be in the Startup
directory of your Start menu unless you removed/disabled it.
--
Craig Ringer
Other related posts:
