Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: New to ColorThink but perhaps it got faster  (Read 2374 times)

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
New to ColorThink but perhaps it got faster
« on: December 30, 2009, 10:00:27 pm »

In doing some research regarding ColorThink 2.2 I came across quite a few postings that said it would grind to an absolute halt if you tried to analyze the gamut of a full resolution photograph (a lot of folks were downrezing their files before opening them in ColorThink). I just purchased it yesterday and got my key today so of what's the first thing I do (the plate is hot, don't touch it... of course I touched the plate)... anyhow, looks like they may have improved the performance in the beta as I opened a full resolution 8 bit file from a Nikon D700 and it opened instantly, no waiting at all. Just thought I'd put that out there as an FYI if anyone is interested. Of course I never used previous versions so I have no frame of reference. Very useful tool (quite educational as well)! I'm not sure why I didn't buy it a long time ago.

Cheers, Joe
Logged

Pat Herold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
New to ColorThink but perhaps it got faster
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2009, 04:38:44 pm »

Hi Joe,

I think the reference to graphing images referred to ColorThink Pro, the more extensive version of ColorThink.  People in various parts of the industry just refer to either one as "ColorThink" and that can be confusing.   ColorThink 2 graphs quickly because it automatically downsizes all images before graphing them.  In ColorThink Pro, some users wanted to be able to see every pixel graphed so we offered that ability - but it does take a while to do all that math.  I think you'll find that your results are good nevertheless.  We find that you really don't need to graph every single pixel in the original image in order to get a good idea of where your image lies in the work space.

Glad you like it!  It's sometimes hard to explain to people why they need ColorThink (2 or Pro) until they have a problem and find that CT helps them identify the cause very quickly.  A picture tells a thousand words and all that.
Logged
-Patrick Herold
  Tech Support,  chromix.com

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
New to ColorThink but perhaps it got faster
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2009, 06:00:02 pm »

Quote from: pherold
Hi Joe,

I think the reference to graphing images referred to ColorThink Pro, the more extensive version of ColorThink.  People in various parts of the industry just refer to either one as "ColorThink" and that can be confusing.   ColorThink 2 graphs quickly because it automatically downsizes all images before graphing them.  In ColorThink Pro, some users wanted to be able to see every pixel graphed so we offered that ability - but it does take a while to do all that math.  I think you'll find that your results are good nevertheless.  We find that you really don't need to graph every single pixel in the original image in order to get a good idea of where your image lies in the work space.

Glad you like it!  It's sometimes hard to explain to people why they need ColorThink (2 or Pro) until they have a problem and find that CT helps them identify the cause very quickly.  A picture tells a thousand words and all that.

Thanks for the info Patrick. I've been going hog wild loading up images and profiles, comparing them to color spaces etc. Fortunately it's confirming a lot of what I expected to be the case but I have soaked up quite a bit of knowledge as well. I'm still getting a little bit of a sense for the subtleties though. The lab I currently use is ProDPI. The lab i used to use is WHCC and in the 3D graph the differences in the yellows seem to be ever so subtle but if you do a soft proof (I have a shot of some yellow flowers and some red flowers with a slight orange cast) there's quite a dramatic difference between the detail that ProDPI holds vs. WHCC (WHCC being MUCH worse). ColorThink 2 shows only a slightly wider gamut in the yellow/greens with ProPDI which translates to a much larger difference than I would have thought. It's interesting to see a 3D representation of everything though.

Is there any way that either ColorThink 2 or pro can represent color shifts when handling out of gamut colors (or to rephrase, can either product graphically represent (given a specified rendering intent) how a profile will remap out of gamut colors)? ProDPI's profiles do a pretty good job of remapping out of gamut stuff where as WHCC just does an absolutely terrible job. The reds shift in color and the density of yellows changes dramatically.... it would be nice to have a way to globally see what's going to happen to various colors other than loading up individual images in ps and soft proofing to see what the changes will be.

Cheers, Joe
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
New to ColorThink but perhaps it got faster
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2010, 06:05:16 pm »

Quote from: pherold
ColorThink 2 graphs quickly because it automatically downsizes all images before graphing them.  In ColorThink Pro, some users wanted to be able to see every pixel graphed so we offered that ability - but it does take a while to do all that math.


So in the Pro version the only option is manually create a downrezzed sample?  Any chance of an option that lets the user toggle this preference?  Most of the time I would much prefer the auto downsize option.
Logged

Pat Herold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
New to ColorThink but perhaps it got faster
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2010, 04:05:44 pm »

Joe,  
Once you have an image in the grapher in CT2, you can choose to "Plot as Vectors" and click & drag a profile to the "destination" window.  This will apply the profile to the points - actually convert them into lines (vectors) with little heads on one end to show you the direction they are going.  So, yes this is very useful to see exactly what a particular profile is going to do to a specific image.  It is often amazing to see how different rel col is from perceptual.  For example, rel col is supposed to send out of gamut colors to the nearest reasonable point in the profile gamut, but it does not always work that way.   More on how to plot as vectors in our manual:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/The_Grapher#Plotting_styles

Wayne,
That sounds like a good idea.  We have a "Feature Request" form that people can fill out from within any of the ColorThink betas.  Everyone is welcome to suggest things you'd like to see in a future version of ColorThink.  We read them and make our programing resource decisions based on them!  I'll go ahead in put in a request for an automatic downsizing option for you in CTPro.
Logged
-Patrick Herold
  Tech Support,  chromix.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up