On 4 May 2012 09:58, Pascal de Bruijn <pmjdebruijn pcode nl> wrote:
> Just curious for which camera? And for which application?
Canon something or other. Sorry. We wanted to see what the profiles
would look like with different illuminates compared. Instead we got
the profile attached which is just batshit-insane.
>> I know the
>> limited number of patches aren't going to produce a super profile
>
> The ColorChecker doesn't have many patches either, but it's fine for
> matrix profiles. I'd would probably use colprof -aG for something like
> this.
Yes, agreed. We've got this in the code already:
/* check whether the target is a low patch count target and generate
low quality single shaper profile */
if (reference_kind == GCM_CALIBRATE_REFERENCE_KIND_COLOR_CHECKER ||
reference_kind == GCM_CALIBRATE_REFERENCE_KIND_QPCARD_201)
g_ptr_array_add (array, g_strdup ("-aG"));
> I think you need the .cie file.
Great, I've added code in GCM to not ask the user for this reference
CIE file and just use the one from argyllcms.
> I'm guessing the procedure with the QPcard is similar to that of the
> ColorChecker, in that all the card are produced to a tight
> specification to match a reference.
Right, that sounds about right from what mizmo said.
> One of the thing that may be a problem is gamma... You can pass -G 1
> to scanin, especially if the RAW converter output is still linear.
Is there any way to know this automatically? Thanks dude.
Richard.
Attachment:
GCM - Nikon - D60 - Unknown serial (2012-05-04) [09-38-57].icc
Description: Binary data