[argyllcms] Re: dcraw linear workflow?
- From: Klaus Karcher <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:08:32 +0200
Ben Goren wrote:
Well, as I mentioned, I was able to get a profile with an average error
of ~0.8 using an XYZ LUT.
In my experience (with scanner profiles), the low self-fit error of XYZ
CLUT profiles can be deceptive.
Although the self fit error of Lab CLUT profiles is higher, they can
perform better than corresponding XYZ profiles when one uses independent
test- and trainingset (see example below):
a) testset == trainingset:
profcheck -k TI3/combined.ti3 ICC/combined_Lab.icc
Profile check complete, errors(CIEDE2000):
max. = 9.178650, avg. = 1.371444, RMS = 1.841394
profcheck -k TI3/combined.ti3 ICC/combined_XYZ.icc
Profile check complete, errors(CIEDE2000):
max. = 8.111750, avg. = 0.939068, RMS = 1.496107
b) testset <> trainingset:
profcheck -k TI3/testset.ti3 ICC/trainingset_Lab.icc
Profile check complete, errors(CIEDE2000):
max. = 9.018731, avg. = 2.481812, RMS = 3.028049
profcheck -k TI3/testset.ti3 ICC/trainingset_XYZ.icc
Profile check complete, errors(CIEDE2000):
max. = 21.973729, avg. = 2.892268, RMS = 4.078021
Klaus
Other related posts:
