Graeme Gill wrote: > Nikolay Pokhilchenko wrote: > > > I confirm that generally XYZ-LUT profiles are tend to significant banding > > in real use. > > The banding is preventing the use of -ax key for display or camera > > profiling. The > > quality of such profiles is unacceptable (ArgyllCMS V1.0.4. I've didn't try > > -ax with > > latest versions). IMHO, much more smoothing is needed for XYZ data in the > > darks, may be > > in overall. > > How are you testing this ? > > Can you reproduce the problem using imdi/cctiff ? > (ie. are you sure it's not a CMM issue ?) > > Graeme Gill. > OK. I've found my display data and have done an experiment with Argyll_V1.1.0_RC2: 1. timage -t -s -x -r300 TST.tif 2. colprof -v -ax -qu vaio 3. profcheck -k -x -w -e vaio.ti3 vaio.icm errors(CIEDE2000): max. = 0.059043, avg. = 0.010457, RMS = 0.011356 4. cctiff -v -p -ir sRGB.icm -or vaio.icm TST.tif TST-ax.tif 5. colprof -v -al -qu vaio 6. profcheck -k -x -w -e vaio.ti3 vaio.icm errors(CIEDE2000): max. = 0.660557, avg. = 0.132991, RMS = 0.161808 7. cctiff -v -ir sRGB.icm -or vaio.icm TST.tif TST-al.tif 8. Comparing the resulting images Take a look at *.jpg attached. At the top - the inverse XYZ-LUT result, at the bottom - Lab-LUT result. Both are desaturated equally to fit any display gamut. The error values between profiles are differs more than an order (x10) with the same instrument and the same device. I didn't find appropriate display and instrument noise in -ax profile error check results. The smoothing for -ax may be insufficient. IMHO, the smoothing in perceptual Lab-space is quite good thing, but the same smoothing in non-perceptual XYZ-space may playing a bad trick on resulting wedge banding. IMHO.
-ax(top) vs -al(bottom).jpg
Description: JPEG image