[argyllcms] colprof

From: <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 15:41:34 -0500

Is it possible that a monitor profile created from 300 measurements would be
"worse" than a monitor profile created from 20?

If I am to believe the profile statistics, the "20" stats are:

peak err = 0.867848, avg err = 0.336499, RMS = 0.414663

While the "300" stats are:

peak err = 2.220396, avg err = 0.642870, RMS = 0.747308

Using the exact same ti3 data, instead of using the -as switch, as above, I
used the -ag switch, and what looks like worse results.

The "20 -ag" stats are:

peak err = 7.692038, avg err = 1.455399, RMS = 2.120923

The "300 -ag" stats are:

peak err = 8.525457, avg err = 2.160119, RMS = 2.613240

My command line is very basic in both cases:

colprof -v -A""NEC"" -M""PA271W"" -D""NECPA271W20"" -ag outFile20"

colprof -v -A""NEC"" -M""PA271W"" -D""NECPA271W300"" -ag outFile300"

I can post the ti3 data files.

/ Roger

[argyllcms] colprof

Other related posts: