[argyllcms] Re: help with camera profile
- From: Iliah Borg <ib@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:23:53 -0400
Dear Graeme,
> edmund ronald wrote:
>> they will be solved for them. ICC profiles for dcraw or its grandchildren
>> (this is the argyll list) are a facile and incomplete solution to a wrongly
>> stated problem, as the yearning for magically perfect profiles evidenced by
>> highly technical and competent list members confirms every day.
>
> It doesn't necessarily follow that because something is not perfect,
> it has no value.
That's of course true.
One of the issues is - why use indirect experiments, like shooting targets,
when we can go for direct experimental data determining physical properties of
the pixels.
Some other questions:
why use Lab when we know CFAs do not follow and and often exceed Lab (just the
residual IR sensitivity is enough to through things off)
why use XYZ when we know CFAs are not designed to follow the definition of the
space.
It seems all we are doing to ourselves trying to fit a sensor into the
Procrustean bed of ICC is getting into metamerism failures and twisted
conversions - both in terms of luma and chroma. We have no editors to get
around metameric issues on top of that.
>> I do find it rather entertaining that the same camera manufacturers -
>> Canon, Nikon, Fuji- who got rid of film then state at the ICC meetings that
>> they will not divulge their cameras spectral sensitivities, linearisations
>> or white balance data (Nikon) because this is confidential information
>> which their customers cannot expect to receive.
>
> That would be their rendering "secret sauce"
Beg to disagree. Physical properties are not rendering secret sauce. It is more
like telling the customer - this ruler is graduated using the length of my
thumb, the conversion factor to standard inches is your problem.
--
Iliah Borg
ib@xxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
