I do supply the spectral data. See
//www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/camera-profiling-with-newest-version-of-Argyll,9
Also, note that the values below about 400nm are all the same which must
be pedestal.
On 8/27/2015 10:09 PM, Ben Goren wrote:
On Aug 27, 2015, at 6:32 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The ColorCheckerSB-munki.cie file he posted earlier has LAB_L LAB_A LAB_B as the lastThe first patch has L* a* b* = 96.709 1.8667 -13.059, which is decidedly bluishI'm not sure where you get that value from - spec2cie says it is
96.694984 -0.854171 0.157998.
three columns, and 96.709 1.8667 -13.059 for the first row. That's what first screamed at
me, "FWA!"
but the ColorMunki values below 420 are "guestimated", since the illuminantIt's the values from 380 to 420 in the file that next screamed, "FWA," to me,
drops off there, and the diffraction grating looses efficiency.
especially coupled with the peak at 480nm and the decline thereafter. And, of course,
having first been primed by the -13 b* in the file. But if 380 - 420 don't actually mean
anything...then they don't actually mean anything. (In which case I think it'd be better
to not have them at all, but that's another story....)
The A1 white patch D50 L*a*b* comes out at 97.222621 -0.954457 0.777881 for theWell, *something*'s not right with that .ti3 file. I just ran spec2cie on it,
Spectrolino, and 96.694984 -0.854171 0.157998 for the Munki.
So I think you are on the wrong track.
myself, and compared the original XYZ and LAB values therein...and spec2cie
comes up with radically different results than what's in that file. To wit:
XYZ_X XYZ_Y XYZ_Z
Old 89.467 91.727 91.969 (ColorCheckerSB-munki.cie from Chad)
New 87.946 91.694 75.454 (Same file, after spec2cie)
LAB_L LAB_A LAB_B
Old 96.709 1.8667 -13.059 (ColorCheckerSB-munki.cie from Chad)
New 96.695 -0.8541 0.1580 (Same file, after spec2cie)
So, unless Chad was supplying arguments to colprof that would cause it to
re-calculate reference values from spectral data...those differences alone
would more than explain the troubles he's having.
I may be crazy, but I don't think I'm _entirely_ off the reservation...but, if
I am, I'd sure want to know about it....
I think I've learned one thing...and that's not to simply assume that XYZ and
LAB values in a file can be counted on as corresponding with the spectral data
they're accompanying -- or, at least, not the D50 calculation thereof. If I run
spec2cie with -i D65, the values (XYZ 86.68459 91.73454 99.42845) are closer to
the original but definitely not a match, so that's not it, either.
b&
