On: Wed, 26 Nov 03 Bob Marchant wrote:- >>> Is possible (is there any point) to profile a camera?
Yes - ish. > The subject of a long debate(Won't even start to look here at the issues > regarding firmware/hidden software combinations that produce pleasing > rather than the accurate colour we need . Look at the scanner sharpening > debate ...in many (Most ?) cases ,it's switched on even when it's > supposedly switched off ) . I prefer it switched off - preferably everything switched off. > Probably better to look at the idea of the characterisation of the chip > rather than profiling for each set. This is where accurate colour begins - and ends. A Raw file is thus a characterisation of the chip after its electrical output has been converted by the onboard software. However, this characterisation is debatable and not cast in stone. The recent debacle with Kodak's 14n firmware updates is due in part to their R&D department race to understand how their chip actually works, never mind its characterisation and implementation through software. > There is no doubt that using a Macbeth chart and the relevant software is > going to produce a much better result than just using a white point > correction or grey balance. We're in the middle of a colour critical job > at present and the camera calibration using our older Philips chip in the > Sinar 23 is producing remarkably accurate results ( We're checking our > output by using spectrophotometer to measure our subject matter ......how > sad is that ? ) Not sad, more of an understanding of what is ahead - perhaps. William Curwen =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
