[argyllcms] Re: Fwd: Simple how-to on camera profiling

  • From: Karljohan Lundin Palmerius <karljohan.palmerius@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:45:04 +0100

>> If scanin can't autodetect the target, the quality of the target shot
>> is highly questionable, and so will the profiling results be.
> I have taken lots of images of test charts under lab conditions here, and it
> happened quite often that scanin either could not detect the target properly,
> or was off by a little (often by one patch row or column). This also has got a
> lot to do with what's around the target. In photography it's a lot more
> difficult to get that right than with scanners.
> In the cases where the target was not matched at all, or incorrectly, or just
> with some inaccuracy slightly too high, finding and passing the fiducial
> points has helped a lot. And the results of profiling were not really of
> inferior quality.

Great news! I'll do what anyone does and select which facts to believe.

May I ask how you do to find the coordinates of the fiducial points?
Maybe there is a quick way that I overlooked before? I found it a bit
troublesome to use a photo editor and manually transfer the
coordinates corner by corner.

> Having said that, of course the single biggest aspect for ensuring good
> profiling quality is to have a properly illuminated target. So curvature
> matters a lot more than angle, just as you must try to avoid glare.

My thought exactly!

/ KJ

Other related posts: