On Monday 09 January 2006 02:13 pm, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > > Changes since 1.11.0 > > > > Much improved SCons build scripts. These improvements include: > > > > 1. A number of command line switches have been added that give users more > > control over the build process. See the README file for details. > > > > 2. On some systems QT was not correctly detected by the 1.11.0 scons > > build scripts. The new scons build scripts should correct this and it > > should now build on most Linux systems and possibly netBSD and freeBSD > > systems. > > Once I finally coerced TiffIO (the src.rpm) to compile, it > installed in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/imageformats/libTiffIO.so. It would > not recognize that it was there until I symlinked it in > /usr/lib/qt-3.3/lib
This library is a little strange but it very powerful in that once it is installed and recognized it enables TIFF file IO for every QT app on your system that can open graphics files not just LPROF. It is also fully cross platform and is supposed to work on Windows and Mac OS/X as well as Linux. > > > There were also some minor changes to the user interface to facilitate > > functionality to be added later . > > I would like to say that I'm excited about how the project is > coming along. I started looking at lprof a year or so ago and was > disappointed that it'd been neglected for so long. I've got a few > questions/comments/suggestions: > > - Searching paths for templates/profiles/targets seems fragile > (path-wise). Are they required to have .TXT suffix now? Between older > lprof versions (with the broken case, etc), and argyll the file suffix > is confusing. Maybe allow override in the dialog box? As far as I can tell the newer profiling targets all come with the reference files having a suffix of .TXT. But if that is not the case it is a fairly simple change to add other suffixes. Do you know of any recent reference files that are using something else? If so I will update the code to support additional suffixes. The old code would blow up if you pointed it at a directory that had non-CGATS files. I did a lot of work to stop that from happening and while I was in there working on that stuff I filtered all files that had other suffixes so that it would be faster. Again I can add additional suffixes very easily so let me know what you need and it will be in the next release. So if you have specific suffixes that you would like added please open a BUG report so that it can be tracked. > > - I'm a bit ignorant of the details of the profiles, but my planned > workflow with my digital camera is RAW->Linear16 TIFF (color-managed). Is > there a way to force a prelinearization gamma to the profile? It seems > like all the profiling tools I've used tend to fit the LUT with a more or > less linear (or in the case of argyll funkily nonlinear) prelinearization. > Manually setting a gamma of around 2.2 might make for a nicer profile. Of > course, I could be completely full of crap and am going about this the > wrong way. LPROF will calculate an approximate input gamma for each primary by looking at the target image and this can be seen in the messages box as the profile is created and when you open the profile checker dialog. My experience so far using UFRAW as my raw converter is that processing the target image with gamma around 2.2 to 2.4 seems to give the best results. This might not be true for other RAW converters or cameras and may require some experimentation. Don Hutchson of Hutch Color recommends using a gamma of 2.8 when profiling high dynamic range devices like cameras and high end film scanners to recover more shadow detail. But I have found that at a gamma of 2.2 I have good detail right down into the noise with my D70. You should have a look at the UFRAW tutorial that is part of the help system. It has lots of good info about how to create camera profiles. Even if you are not using UFRAW you should read it as it will help you understand the basic workflow for creating camera profiles. I would also be inclined to stay away from using a gamma near 1 (linear) since this will tend to block up your shadow detail with only very minor improvements in your highlight detail. This might be usefull for images that are slightly over exposed as a special case to recover as much highlight detail as possible. > > - Template selection (green boxes, corners, 19+3) didn't seem to match my > IT8.7 target (linear 16 tiff). Is it a bug? Do you mean that the hot zones don't match up with the patches on the target? Does it match when you use the scandemo.png in the data/pic directory (this is a 19+3 target)? If not then more then likely you are not correctly selecting the target corners. If it does match with scandemo.png then your target is differrent in some way. What vendor is it from? And how is it not matching? The lower corners need to be marked at the lower left corner of the white patch in the lower left corner of the target and the lower right corner needs to be marked at the lower right corner of the DMAX patch in the lower right corner of the target. Perhaps I need to add some images showing this in the help system. Currently I only show an image of the upper left corner. Also in some cases you might need to adjust the corner marks to get the patches to line up correctly. This is particularly true if the target image is not very close to being squared up in the image as can happen when shooting the target with a camera. The algorithm that places the template will handle some fairly out of square target images but sometimes it needs a little help from the user. > > Thanks, > -Cory ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Lcms-user mailing list Lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user
