Gerhard Fuernkranz wrote:
Graeme Gill wrote:
For reasons that I haven't looked into, I found a dramatic difference
between the fit of a shaper/matrix model to a calibrated vs.
uncalibrated
display. After I'd calibrated my display (which takes out any zero
offset in each channel, makes each channel have a fixed response
curve, and makes the three channels mix together properly to
form white), the fit was very good. On an uncalibrated display,
the fit was rather poor.
Graeme, how good is good, and how poor is poor?
For a rather inexpensive consumer CRT monitor, which is not calibrated
(except that I did set brightness/contrast visually), I obtained the
following fitting error for 1000 measured samples:
profile -qh -as:
$ profcheck moni.ti3 moni.icc
Profile check complete, errors: peak = 5.911741, avg = 1.388206
$ profcheck -c moni.ti3 moni.icc
Profile check complete, errors (CIE94): peak = 4.711208, avg = 0.946515
profile -qh -ag:
$ profcheck moni.ti3 moni.icc
Profile check complete, errors: peak = 7.179901, avg = 1.543169
$ profcheck -c moni.ti3 moni.icc
Profile check complete, errors (CIE94): peak = 5.087783, avg = 1.019353
And with version 0.53, the fit seems to be still a bit better (-qh -as):
$ profcheck moni.ti3 moni.icc
Profile check complete, errors: peak = 3.974228, avg = 1.265197
$ profcheck -c moni.ti3 moni.icc
Profile check complete, errors (CIE94): peak = 3.033981, avg = 0.876509
Regards,
Gerhard
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Lcms-user mailing list
Lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user
