I just made curves&matrix profile and it appears to be bad when I run profile verification. Much worse than LUT. Sent by AAK from iPhone 3Gs On Apr 13, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Steffen <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----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----- >