Does anybody try the subj? It seems to bring much better results comparing to Scanner module does. What’s the main difference between two methods producing so dissimiliar results?
At 1:05 AM -0700 4/20/05, povoloka wrote:
Does anybody try the subj? It seems to bring much better results comparing to Scanner module does. What’s the main difference between two methods producing so dissimiliar results?
This is not something I’ve ever tried.
I think the main diff is that the camera module allows for variation in the lighting for the target - it builds profiles that will work OK even with variations in the white point.
I suppose it makes sense that it would build OK scanner profiles… interesting to know though…
which target did you use? and what differences did you see?
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
–
Post generated from email list
Hi Steve!
I used two targets: one was IT8 shipped with my Linoscan 2400, manually remeasured. The second was printed on my Epson 2100 (Luster Paper) - it contains RGB_scan target from ProfileMaker with gray gradient added. I made profiles with spectral data of the targets, D50 as illuminant both in Scanner and Camera modules.
Profiles from Scanner module were generally loosy, they simply didn’t match originals even approximately. I mean I can, of course, match the picture using Linocolor tools, but it’s not the goal.
For Camera profiles creating there’re a lot of options in ProfileMaker, but I simply used Reproduction mode. First I was quite diassapointed - those profiles were even more loosy than from Scanner module. But then I made profile with Auto Gray balance option off - and it was really good. I should notice that profile from my custom target was a little better, especially in high saturated colors.
Another issue to notice is that camera profiles seems to be usable with quite different surfaces like paintings or offset prints. It’s not perfect but it really works.
Best regards,
Petr Povoloka.
interesting subject. I just tried what you have said and found that scanner profiling module does better for scanner profiling and digicam module does also better for digicam profiling. I am not sure how you did your scanner profiling and what your scanner is, but in my case the scanner profile generated using Kodak IT8 target using reference values custom measured with SpectroScan works excellent. It is quite accurate.
Regarding scanner profiles generated with digital camera module, in short the results have much less contrast. I used reproduction, general, product options for profiling.
In the case of digital camera profiles using scanner module, the result is not that bad, most similar to the one created using reproduction option for profiling. But this time again camera profiling module works better for digital camera profiling.
I guess the much wider dynamic range involved with the digital camera capture which is supposed to deal with the real world, not just fixed environment like that of scanner, makes the difference.
I am using ProfileMaker 5.0.7.