Hello
Is there a way to evaluate profile lumpiness? Applying a profile and
seeing or suspecting to see weird colors one. I was thinking if an
interpolation between patches could reveal excessive color or luminance
drift.
There is a smoothing option -r (and -rr, rs) in colprof but ti3 file
does not seem to carry individual patch XYZ noise stats and the
smoothing figure likely does not depend on how reliable the patch XYZ
reference data is. Could this exaggerate bumps with noisy patch XYZ
reference data?
I was initially using Vuescan with IT8 calibration and scanning slides
and thought everything was fine. Then I learned Vuescan supports only
its own matrix profiles and they suck and LUT profiles are supposedly so
much better [1] [2]. And then finally I learned LUT profiles suck too
[3] [4].
Oldendorf is the author of ColorPerfect PhotoShop plugin. He talks about
color integrity being fragile and being destroyed by non-linear
transformations. In [3] he says: "Lookup tables are completely
unsuitable for RGB input devices.". In [4] he criticizes many thins but
LUTs are criticized for their lumpiness and breaking havoc. Is this FUD?
Jarkko Lavinen
[1]
http://blog.iansheh.com/2012/01/vuescan-how-to-profile-your-scanner-film/ ;
Vuescan: how to profile your scanner/film
[2]
http://blog.iansheh.com/2013/04/how-to-get-the-best-scans-from-vuescan-profiling-scanning/
How to get the best scans from Vuescan (profiling & scanning)
[Updated]
[3] https://www.flickr.com/groups/977912@N23/discuss/72157642609040454/
ColorPerfect Workflow with ICM
[4] http://www.c-f-systems.com/Complete/CalibratingDigitalImages.html
Comments on Calibrating Digital Images
http://www.c-f-systems.com/Complete/CalibratingDigitalImages.html#Pitfalls
The Pitfalls of Using Profiling as Camera Calibration
