Здравствуйте, Graeme. Вы писали 24 мая 2011 г., 2:41:57: > yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> When you write "by hand" you mean, that I >> need to write another tool by myself. Of course, it's kind of an aswer >> :-) But this is rather hard thing. And, on the other hand, I think that >> only slighter code changes are needed. > There are several paths available to you. You could code it > in C using (Argyll) icclib. You could probably do it even > easier using lcms, and lcms may have scripting interfaces available > if you want to use something other than C (ie. lcms-python, tcllcms etc.). >> Coolproof in matrix+gamma >> mode reads ".ti3" values and try to Hello, Sorry, english is not my native. By "guessing" I mean "finding best by calculating", of course. I understand, the this is not a result of "random" function. Anyway, the quesion is - do you want "colproof" to be better tool for profiling cameras, or not. If it's not your foreground task, so, I have to write some tool by myself :-( >> 1. Guess gamma values; > No, it doesn't do any guessing. If fits a response > curve to the device behaviour exemplified by the .ti3 data points. >> The only key I need is "not to guess gamma >> upon ti3 values, and assume gamma is [some value]". The linearity of >> camera sensor is quite a good assumption. By analizing this or that real >> data you get "gamma 2.18" or "gamma 2.21", and this number would be not >> exactly 2.2 only beacause of camera noise. > This is what I mean by colprof not being the ideal tool. It fits > the profile to the data as given, using a least squares type > fit criteria. > One workaround would be to process your data values to be > linear light and then use the -am option to fit the matrix only. You > would then have to patch the profile and change the gamma value > in the R,G & B curve tags to be the gamma you know it to be. > Graeme Gill. -- С уважением, Yan mailto:yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx