Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: photo570 on August 14, 2012, 09:01:27 pm

Title: Camera Calibration
Post by: photo570 on August 14, 2012, 09:01:27 pm
Does anybody know of any solutions for camera calibration that uses proper ICC profiles. Th Coloreyes solution is no longer for sale, and the products from X-rite produce DNG profiles that only work with Adobe products. I need/would like something that will produce ICC profiles I can use with Leaf Capture and Capture 1 Pro.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Kind regards,
Jason Berge.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: Czornyj on August 15, 2012, 05:12:48 am
I achieved decent results with ArgyllCMS
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 15, 2012, 10:11:28 am
Does anybody know of any solutions for camera calibration that uses proper ICC profiles. Th Coloreyes solution is no longer for sale, and the products from X-rite produce DNG profiles that only work with Adobe products. I need/would like something that will produce ICC profiles I can use with Leaf Capture and Capture 1 Pro.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Kind regards,
Jason Berge.


keep an eye on http://www.qpcard.com - they are working on ICC profiling (but not yet recommended for C1 as they say)

http://www.rmimaging.com/information/qpcard203.html
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 15, 2012, 10:27:17 am
Traditionally building ICC profiles for cameras has been hit of miss (mostly miss)! There are a number of reasons for this and why DNG profiles make so much more sense. You can try differing products that build ICC camera profiles but expect frustrations.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 15, 2012, 12:44:45 pm
Traditionally building ICC profiles for cameras has been hit of miss (mostly miss)! There are a number of reasons for this and why DNG profiles make so much more sense. You can try differing products that build ICC camera profiles but expect frustrations.

it is just because C1 expects certain data tuned to its code in icc container, not because icc container somehow is bad... you are not saying that C1 is rendering worse colors w/ its profiles supplied in icc containers than LR/ACR with its dcp supplied profiles, are you ?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 15, 2012, 12:50:01 pm
it is just because C1 expects certain data tuned to its code in icc container, not because icc container somehow is bad... you are not saying that C1 is rendering worse colors w/ its profiles supplied in icc containers than LR/ACR with its dcp supplied profiles, are you ?

Yes, in this respect the ICC container is ‘bad’. ICC profiles by design are output referred, DNG profiles are not. Creating ICC profiles for cameras can be a huge PITA depending on what you are trying to fingerprint. A studio setup where a single profile is built to define that capture (and as importantly, the rendering), not too difficult but still not always effective. A profile that defines all kinds of captures under all kinds of conditions, not going to happen. You have to feed the ICC profile software a rendered image. How you render it plays a huge role. Then there are issues with the target itself, how you capture it, the targets gamut and how that affects the profile (since these camera don’t really have a gamut). A big can of worms. Nothing like profiling a scanner which can be locked down and fixed in state. No wonder that after years of trying, most CMS software vendors have given up, or moved towards a raw DNG process for camera profiling.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: photo570 on August 15, 2012, 04:42:22 pm
"There are a number of reasons for this and why DNG profiles make so much more sense"

If only DNG profiles worked with C1 Pro and Leaf Capture, then I would go that way, but they don't. And yes I am looking mainly at a studio based situation.

Cheers,
Jason.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 15, 2012, 05:37:57 pm
A profile that defines all kinds of captures under all kinds of conditions, not going to happen.

again somehow OEM C1 profiles does not render color worse than OEM Adobe profiles... so dcp profiles somehow does not provide anything better than alternative solutions


You have to feed the ICC profile software a rendered image. How you render it plays a huge role. Then there are issues with the target itself, how you capture it, the targets gamut and how that affects the profile (since these camera don’t really have a gamut). A big can of worms. Nothing like profiling a scanner which can be locked down and fixed in state.

indeed you need to put an effort... which brings a question - wasn't it Schewe or Eric Chan to stated that Adobe actually not using its own tools and CC24 or similar targets but rather illuminate the sensor w/ monochromator... Medice, cura te ipsum

No wonder that after years of trying, most CMS software vendors have given up, or moved towards a raw DNG process for camera profiling.

who are those ?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: Schewe on August 15, 2012, 06:01:09 pm
indeed you need to put an effort... which brings a question - wasn't it Schewe or Eric Chan to stated that Adobe actually not using its own tools and CC24 or similar targets but rather illuminate the sensor w/ monochromator...

That must have been Eric...I would not be quite so specific with the tools used...and if they (Eric and Thomas) are using more exotic tools it doesn't mean that they are trying to heal themselves but to get the best possible solution possible.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 15, 2012, 07:23:41 pm
again somehow OEM C1 profiles does not render color worse than OEM Adobe profiles... so dcp profiles somehow does not provide anything better than alternative solutions

I have absolutely no idea how the C1 folks build their profiles, or for that matter where or how they apply them in their processing chain. But there is a huge difference in an ICC profile and a dcp profile, especially where they are applied and on what kind of data. This isn’t to say ICC camera profiles are impossible to create, just very tough and often not effective.

Quote
who are those ?

X-Rite, GretagMacbeth, Datacolor and presumably ColorEyes.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: LenR on August 15, 2012, 07:25:07 pm
I profile the lights more so than the camera.  
I've profiled a couple of lighting set-ups in my studio.  
One for headshots using a particular set of lights and boxes and another for repro using another set of lights.
It works really well.  Color is much more accurate.
I use Profilemaker.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: Czornyj on August 16, 2012, 12:32:56 am
"There are a number of reasons for this and why DNG profiles make so much more sense"

If only DNG profiles worked with C1 Pro and Leaf Capture, then I would go that way, but they don't. And yes I am looking mainly at a studio based situation.

Cheers,
Jason.


I created ICC profiles using ArgyllCMS for fine art digital archiving at a museum studio that has PhaseOne digital backs, and it worked. You could also try commercial basICColor input - there's a 14 day trial license available.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 16, 2012, 12:40:33 am
I have absolutely no idea how the C1 folks build their profiles, or for that matter where or how they apply them in their processing chain. But there is a huge difference in an ICC profile and a dcp profile, especially where they are applied and on what kind of data. This isn’t to say ICC camera profiles are impossible to create, just very tough and often not effective.

we were over this before = http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=66555.msg526111#msg526111




Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 16, 2012, 12:52:29 am
X-Rite, GretagMacbeth, Datacolor and presumably ColorEyes.

if you are talking about their consumer level targets + software to create dcp profiles - that's essentially a "Gary Fong" business, they just earn extra money by creating an illusion that an average Joe can make a really good profile... and indeed average Joe thinks that he can - placebo effect of something DIY... plus such an average Joe is most probably a LR user hence - dcp... but if you take for example RPP which has an embedded front end to Argyll then it is easy to create an ICC contained profile for it w/ the same average Joe quality and speed.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 09:25:28 am
if you are talking about their consumer level targets + software to create dcp profiles - that's essentially a "Gary Fong" business, they just earn extra money by creating an illusion that an average Joe can make a really good profile...

And they can! I’ve yet to see any user properly using the tools produce a dcp profile that wasn’t as good and almost always better than the canned DNG profiles! I can’t even get close to saying this about those, myself included over the years trying to make ICC camera profiles.

No, I wan’t talking about consumer level products. I was talking about rather expensive, pro level products that used to build ICC camera profiles that are no longer supported.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: Stephen G on August 16, 2012, 11:26:23 am
Have any of you tried profiling your camera as if it were a scanner? I do art reproductions and I've been doing this for a short while now and its giving me good results. Here's what I do:

Shoot target and subject under identical light conditions and camera settings. Target in my case is an HCT.
Process target Raw in a converter that can export a true linear tiff
Create profile with the scanner module of PMP (Argyll probably an option, but haven't played with this)
Process subject shots same way as the target shot - linear tiff
Assign profile - colour and tonality pops into place very nicely
convert to working space and carry on with normal post work

So far I've found three packages that do the linear export trick: UFRaw, DXO Optics and RawTherapee. DXO is giving best results so far as it allows me to WB before exporting the linear tif. RawTherapee (only downloaded it today) seems to export the file with WB as shot. Tough luck if you got it wrong in camera.

The HCT achilles heel, for me, has been it's white, which is frequently not as bright as the painting white that I happen to be dealing with. I end up having to do the HCT extended range trick to avoid clipping the brights.

Feel free to poke holes in the workflow, point out pitfalls or make suggestions.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 16, 2012, 11:35:37 am
And they can! I’ve yet to see any user properly using the tools produce a dcp profile that wasn’t as good and almost always better than the canned DNG profiles!

which brings the question - why Adobe can't make good profiles... something is not right here or there  8)

No, I wan’t talking about consumer level products.

you were talking about the likes of xrite passport solution for creating dcp profiles... and I understand your position as that they are good only because Adobe's canned are way too bad... in regione caecorum rex est luscus (c)
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 12:05:46 pm
which brings the question - why Adobe can't make good profiles... something is not right here or there  8)

Oh they can! I’m sure that Thomas and Eric produced stellar profiles for the camera bodies they used. And if all manufacturers camera systems were as consistent as say Epson Pro printers, then a canned profile would work just fine. But there is a huge difference in consistency between an Epson printer and a DSLR and as such, users often wish to create custom DNG profiles for their cameras as well as for specific illuminants.

Quote
you were talking about the likes of xrite passport solution for creating dcp profiles... and I understand your position as that they are good only because Adobe's canned are way too bad... in regione caecorum rex est luscus (c)

Be very careful about making such large generalizations. The canned profiles for my 5DMII isn’t at all bad. The custom profile I build is a bit better.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 12:54:21 pm
But there is a huge difference in consistency between an Epson printer and a DSLR

Source?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 01:03:48 pm
Source?

In terms of the Epson, I have tons of spectral data from numerous models from all over the planet. I can show that the difference between multiple Epson printers printing the same target produce an average dE 2000 on over 1700 patches that is half of 1!

Further, Pixel Genius built profiles for Exhibition fiber for the 2400, 3800, 4800, 7800, 9800, and the 880 series (up to the 11880). We received output from all these printers from numerous test sites all printing a 5000 patch target and again, the dE values for even the consumer printers were well under 1!

This is WHY canned Epson profiles are quite excellent assuming the collected data and profile creation was done to a high standard (good Spectrophotometer, good software). The units are incredibly consistent from device to device. So yes, I have the data.

see:http://pixelgenius.com/epson/

As far as DSLRs, easy to come up with a dE value but far, far more variables and the need of capturing data with multiple bodies in one location! I could easily capture a target in a copy setup. I’d need multiple camera bodies however shooting the exact scene and have the exact raw processing. Then I’d simply use Photoshop to produce a document where there is 1 pixel for each patch, build a ColorList from that in ColorThink and run the dE numbers. Dollars to donuts you’ll see far, far higher dE values.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 01:05:39 pm
Dollars to donuts you’ll see far, far higher dE values.

Speculation?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 01:12:35 pm
Speculation?

Not at all. Think about it just a tad. Just subtract two dark captures from each other in Photoshop.

If you really must, I can capture two images and use the test described and come up with a dE value for a single camera. But really, you think a DSLR, the sensors and such from multiple camera systems are going to be as consistent as an Epson? Just what lighting should be used to capture the images and how consistent is it from capture to capture?

It seems others here have speculated about the quality of canned DNG profiles without an ounce of evidence to back it up. Speculation? I don’t hear the ACR/LR masses complaining about it do you?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 01:38:33 pm
Oscar, what does this quick little test suggest? Two dark captures (lens cap on) from a 5DMII. Both exactly the same rendering in LR (default). Then use Calculations and subtract the two:

(http://digitaldog.net/files/5DMII_Two_DarkCaptures.jpg)

If the images were truly identical, every pixel in the image would be a solid level 128 gray. Pixels that aren't level 128 gray are different by the amount they depart from 128 gray which is useful. I’ve used Levels to exaggerate the difference, which makes patterns easier to see. With the Offset of 128, its far easier to see differences.

If I send R0/G0/B0 to the Epson, print two copies and measure, what do you think the results would be? Now this isn’t to suggest capturing a target of colors twice WITH THE SAME BODY let alone differing bodies wouldn’t be a better reality check. But this quick and dirty test kind of shows the difference in consistency between a capture device like a 5DMII and the existing hard data I have about the consistency of a pile of Epson printers no?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 01:51:53 pm
What does dark noise have to do with the stability of your sensor? Does that dark noise influence your middle gray capture? By how much?

First of all:

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in a DNG colorprofile that couldn't be stored in an ICC profile. An ICC profile is an open container, and as a container it is practically similar to a DNG file as a container. Any arguments set forth to promote DNG can be applied to ICC profiles. It's a standard, it's extendable, and private data can be stored there as well. This whole idea that DNG profiles are somehow better suited for the task at hand is absolute nonsense, and clearly shows that even Adobe doesn't take standards too seriously if push comes to shove.

Second:

The only thing relevant to color calibrating a camera is the stability of the sensor dyes and the stability of its linear response. All other variables are exactly similar in the printer calibration: if you think that contextual light has any relevance to the calibration process, than you should include that in the printer profiling as well. It isn't relevant, because it is divided out of the equation. In case of camera's at least we may assume that to be a linear device. Stupid printers have up to 12 non-linear colors and we calibrate them with only 3 primaries. Then you conclude that they have a stable delta E? Based on what? By measuring all possible combinations of the entire color cube?

Let me ask this:

You have custom profiled your camera and tell us that it is slightly better than the canned profiles.
What do you think causes the difference?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 02:02:15 pm
What does dark noise have to do with the stability of your sensor? Does that dark noise influence your middle gray capture? By how much?

What it tells me quickly is that the capture device is far more variably and inconsistent than the Epson. You want me to capture an full color image, two in a row and subtract them now?

Quote
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in a DNG colorprofile that couldn't be stored in an ICC profile.

That is a meaningless statement. The facts are, where in the imaging chain an ICC profile and a DNG profile are applied is vastly different (scene vs. output referred). The statement doesn’t bring anything useful to the discussion.

Quote
The only thing relevant to color calibrating a camera is the stability of the sensor dyes and the stability of its linear response. All other variables are exactly similar in the printer calibration:

Source, proof? Please provide some useful dE values of say, 4 DSLRs and I’ll supply the same from 4 Epson printers.

Quote
You have custom profiled your camera and tell us that it is slightly better than the canned profiles.
What do you think causes the difference?

I can’t say what the difference result from, but there are differences or the two profiles would be the same and produce the same results considering I used the same target and same DNG profile generation as Adobe. So let me present the question to you: If I use the same Macbeth as Thomas and the same DNG profile creation software, why are there differences in the profiles? My guess is my camera and Thomas is not identical. The differences while not huge don’t point to our 24 patch Macbeth’s. And if what you say about variably in capture devices is so low, why would the anyone need to build their own ICC camera profiles and please explain the vast vacuum in the ICC camera profile solutions.

Quote
Stupid printers have up to 12 non-linear colors and we calibrate them with only 3 primaries.

In the case of my data for Epson and the resulting profiles, there was zero calibration involved. Nor is it needed based on the consistency of the data. This isn’t to say the Epson driver could not be calibrated to produce a better (more linear) result. That isn’t possible with the native driver. We didn’t calibrate, we simply profiled the behavior. And as I’ve pointed out, the differences in consistency here is invisible to a human! Multiple Epson printers from across the US produced output that was half a dE from one another.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 02:23:00 pm
What it tells me quickly is that the capture device is far more variably and inconsistent than the Epson. You want me to capture an full color image, two in a row and subtract them now?

Yes, and then I want you to tell me what delta E is represented by the difference. But it is hardly relevant, because you're simply showing the stability of a single pixel. We are interested in the stability of a group of pixels, which is exactly what you're measuring on a printer as well. If I single out a dot on the Epson, it will be either on or off, by random diffusion chance.

Also, I am not arguing against the stability of the Epsons. I am fine with those. I am arguing that the instability of camera profiling as mentioned in this thread is not based on facts.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 02:36:09 pm
I can’t say what the difference result from, but there are differences or the two profiles would be the same and produce the same results considering I used the same target and same DNG profile generation as Adobe. So let me present the question to you: If I use the same Macbeth as Thomas and the same DNG profile creation software, why are there differences in the profiles? My guess is my camera and Thomas is not identical. The differences while not huge don’t point to our 24 patch Macbeth’s. And if what you say about variably in capture devices is so low, why would the anyone need to build their own ICC camera profiles and please explain the vast vacuum in the ICC camera profile solutions.

Considering that I have no access to the profiling software and the underlying technology, I am obviously at a disadvantage here. Clearly the differences shouldn't be in the MacBeth, they might be in the lens colorcast, but in my experience the largest differences come from selecting the blackpoint base line or multiplication reference.

The reason that most ICC profiling solutions don't work is exactly as you mention, but applying ICC profiles in the wrong spot of the workflow column is hardly a reason to conclude camera's to be inherently instable.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 02:46:19 pm
Yes, and then I want you to tell me what delta E is represented by the difference.

Best I can do until you send me another 5DMII body (please) is tell you the dE differences from two captures of the same source. Popped camera on tripod, shot a color target twice, render, size down, load two images into ColorThink Pro, extract all colors, save out two color lists (166500 colors, very taxing on CT):

--------------------------------------------------

dE Report

Number of Samples: 166500

Delta-E Formula dE2000

Overall - (166500 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   1.63
    Max dE:  44.51
    Min dE:   0.00
 StdDev dE:   2.62

Best 90% - (149849 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.97
    Max dE:   3.69
    Min dE:   0.00
 StdDev dE:   0.74

Worst 10% - (16651 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   7.59
    Max dE:  44.51
    Min dE:   3.69
 StdDev dE:   4.91

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

Visually you can see this as well:

(http://digitaldog.net/files/5DMII_TwoshotVisualDifference.jpg)

I suspect there could be SOME registration issues here (ideally I’d have a camera stand, mirror lock up etc). These two captures were shot with available Fluorescent light under my booth, that light source ALONE could be a factor.
Quote
Also, I am not arguing against the stability of the Epsons. I am fine with those. I am arguing that the instability of camera profiling as mentioned in this thread is not based on facts.

Source? Facts?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 03:02:38 pm
Those numbers seem rather good.

1. Does colorthink compensate for uneven light over the target?

2. Is your lightsource possibly flickering @ 60Hz, could the exposure time pick up that difference?

3. Could you also measure the chroma difference alone?

4. Can ColorThink also compensate for whitepoint differences so we could test what happens for wildly different lightsources.

And less relevant, but interesting:

5. Does the Epson do better for the entire colorcube?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 03:10:51 pm
Those numbers seem rather good.

1. Does colorthink compensate for uneven light over the target?

2. Is your lightsource possibly flickering @ 60Hz, could the exposure time pick up that difference?

3. Could you also measure the chroma difference alone?

4. Can ColorThink also compensate for whitepoint differences so we could test what happens for wildly different lightsources.

And less relevant, but interesting:

5. Does the Epson do better for the entire colorcube?


1. No. Do you think that such unevenness doesn’t ever exist even when capturing a target for creation of a profile? It certainly isn’t an issue for our Epson output.
2. It is possible. Do you think that such flickering doesn’t ever exist even when capturing a target for creation of a profile? It certainly isn’t an issue for our Epson output.
3. Not sure, I’d have to look further into the CT data. Bottom line is, one camera, two captures, even using the average dE, a heck of a lot higher than my Epson data!
4. Yes.
5. Don’t understand the question.

This is where we started down this rabbit hole:

Quote
ME: But there is a huge difference in consistency between an Epson printer and a DSLR

YOUR: Source?

So there is little question about the Epson. In terms of huge difference, well the Epson was around .5dE for multiple devices and the Canon, just one sample is 1.6dE so I’d say that is significant. Until you send me another 5DMII body, the differences in multiple devices can’t be answered. But 1.6dE from ONE sample is telling (you say it looks rather good). You still want to ‘argue’ that a number of DSLR’s will be anywhere as consistent in producing captures as multiple Epson’s as I originally guessed and if so, I’m ready for YOUR data.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 03:30:37 pm
Oh, I just realized, you are measuring all the pixels in the image. Not the separate patches?

Kind of completely invalidates that test, because we don't know the direction of the delta E. The delta E for an entire patch could be 0 while the average per pixel delta E for pixels in that patch could be anything.

Again the instability of single pixels is not what we are interested in.


Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: 32BT on August 16, 2012, 03:32:50 pm
So there is little question about the Epson. In terms of huge difference, well the Epson was around .5dE for multiple devices and the Canon, just one sample is 1.6dE so I’d say that is significant. Until you send me another 5DMII body, the differences in multiple devices can’t be answered. But 1.6dE from ONE sample is telling (you say it looks rather good). You still want to ‘argue’ that a number of DSLR’s will be anywhere as consistent in producing captures as multiple Epson’s as I originally guessed and if so, I’m ready for YOUR data.

Of course, that 1.6dE is a result of 10% of the pixels being out-of-wack. Any explanation as to why those particular pixels are out-of-wack? You're not suggestion that be the result of some instability in your camera, are you?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 04:01:42 pm
Of course, that 1.6dE is a result of 10% of the pixels being out-of-wack. Any explanation as to why those particular pixels are out-of-wack? You're not suggestion that be the result of some instability in your camera, are you?

Do you have a DSLR and something like ColorThink or a similar tool? Because at this point, I’ve exhausted the testing for today and so far, you’ve made a lot of statements without anything to back them up. Rather than knock my admitted quick and dirty methodology to show dE between two kinds of capture, why don’t you provide your own methodology and results for us. Ideally using TWO or more cameras of the same make and model, the crux of the question you asked me in terms of consistency between multiple devices. Or just Fed EX that extra camera body to me...
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 04:05:57 pm
Oh, I just realized, you are measuring all the pixels in the image. Not the separate patches?

No. There was a Nearest Neighbor resample DOWN from the 20MP capture (5616 pixels) to something like 900 pixels along the long axis. There is NO way ColorThink can open a document that large.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 16, 2012, 06:47:15 pm
Oh they can! I’m sure that Thomas and Eric produced stellar profiles for the camera bodies they used.

And what are those, I am truly curious...


Be very careful about making such large generalizations. The canned profiles for my 5DMII isn’t at all bad. The custom profile I build is a bit better.

You are not an average Joe ! that was the point.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 16, 2012, 06:50:24 pm
The facts are, where in the imaging chain an ICC profile and a DNG profile are applied is vastly different (scene vs. output referred).

not at all  - nobody prevents a raw converter to apply the data stored in icc container not exactly as ICC was/is thinking it shall be.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: deejjjaaaa on August 16, 2012, 06:57:10 pm
So let me present the question to you: If I use the same Macbeth as Thomas and the same DNG profile creation software, why are there differences in the profiles? My guess is my camera and Thomas is not identical. The differences while not huge don’t point to our 24 patch Macbeth’s.

the speculation is that they are not using the same custom level (non individually measured) targets and not the same software...

And if what you say about variably in capture devices is so low, why would the anyone need to build their own ICC camera profiles and please explain the vast vacuum in the ICC camera profile solutions.

which vast vacuum ? there are enough such solutions...  the reason for sudden increase in dcp profiling is simple - it is an easy way to make some money for manufacturer because LR/ACR is widely used...
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 06:59:35 pm
not at all  - nobody prevents a raw converter to apply the data stored in icc container not exactly as ICC was/is thinking it shall be.

And then end users would build their own ICC profiles how?
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: digitaldog on August 16, 2012, 07:08:08 pm
the speculation is that they are not using the same custom level (non individually measured) targets and not the same software...

Lets see if Eric comments. My understanding is they use a good old 24 patch Macbeth target. So nothing usual here.

Quote
which vast vacuum ? there are enough such solutions...  the reason for sudden increase in dcp profiling is simple - it is an easy way to make some money for manufacturer because LR/ACR is widely used...

IF it didn’t work well, was easy to use and affordable, it wouldn’t matter. Point of fact, creating ICC camera profiles are not easy, the targets can be expensive as can the software and either the market rejected them or the folks making the solutions rejected them or we’d see modern solutions for this usage.
Title: Re: Camera Calibration
Post by: nkpoulsen on November 17, 2012, 05:19:26 pm
Have any of you tried profiling your camera as if it were a scanner? I do art reproductions and I've been doing this for a short while now and its giving me good results. . .

I do this, and I've obtained quite good results.  I use the "old" PM5 software for creating the profiles.  My process is a little different; I convert using ACR.  I'm careful not to make any adjustments after converting the target.

After converting the photo of the artwork to which I've applied the resulting profile, I find I need to use some curves/levels adjustment to optimize the digital image.  I do this, while observing the artwork.