[argyllcms] Re: Percentage gamut measurements

  • From: Steffen <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:21:33 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

For monitors, matrix+curves is most appropriate. This is for two
reasons: one, those devices are normally "well behaved", making very
detailed cLUT-type profiles unnecessary. Two, and maybe more important:
most CMMs don't seem to behave well when used with cLUT profiles.
matrix+curves is the most widely accepted type of profile.

Am 13.04.2010 18:36, schrieb adam k:
> Which monitor profile type LUT
> Matrix&curves etc is most appropriate for wide gamut monitor?
> 
> Sent by AAK from iPhone 3Gs
> 
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Keith Winstein wrote:
>>> A bit of a tangent, but thought somebody here might know -- is
>>> there an industry standard for how these "percentage gamut covered"
>>> figures are stated?
>>
>> There's a (very poor and misleading) de facto standard.
>>
>>> I assume they put the gamut and the triangle formed by the monitor
>>> illuminants in the same colorspace, and say an increment in any
>>> direction is as good as any other, and calculate the fraction of
>>> the gamut's area covered by the monitor's triangle.
>>
>> It's the xy chromaticity diagram triangle areas. The problems with
>> this are:
>> * The xy chromaticity diagram is very perceptually non-linear.
>> * Gamuts are 3D not 2D.
>>
>> You can use Argyll's "viewgam -i" to get a more meaningful gamut
>> volume
>> comparison.
>>
>> Graeme Gill.
>>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAkvEqB0ACgkQJYXm27tZN3frQgEA3ndcYjZnuUvEWykpdIq7DFy/
ymHFM7eog0Oe90oHG4YBALONiKmTlnglavsoizmIF9kQ8B2BKaYbt30JKMIP7JGp
=ww9i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Other related posts: