Mete,
In my opinion, the smaller number of the patches the better. 210 patches sounds
good to me. Keep in mind that all profiles are not created equal. In
principles, the “colorimetric” tag, the one rendering intent you are likely to
use in your test, needs to be “constructed” in such a way that its result ought
to be comparable across various profilers. But, for reason that are other than
matching accuracy, the “perceptual” tag may show more differences across
profilers. Some with “pleasing” success, others with questionable results.
I look forward to do this study, someday, with my Epson printer. It should be
interesting to analyze the manufacturer’s provided “canned” ICC profiles with
those I can crank on my own. And again, once I have the measurements, I still
have to be cautious with any conclusions until I have comparative pictorials
output.
Thank you for your question 😊
/ Roger
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Mete Balci
Sent: December 10, 2019 6:16 AM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] comparing printer profiles
Hello,
What is the simplest acceptable and quantifiable way to compare the quality of
profiles ? I created a profile and I would like to compare it to the
manufacturer provided one. So I guess I print sth like a target with both
profiles, read both outputs with spotread and calculate the difference for each
from the actual values. What would be the smallest acceptable target for that
purpose, how many patches etc. ? I have i1 Studio, so I can do max 210 patches
in one A4.
Mete
