Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
 81 
 on: June 13, 2024, 05:03:11 pm 
Started by soswow - Last post by Lessbones
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26
Myth 26: Graphing profiles

good lord, that Powerbook G4 display-specific "myth 28" at the end of the page could use a heading update   ;D

also completely OT, apologies, but Andrew, do you know where that "518,733 perceivable colors" number comes from?  The cube root of that number is 80.349 so I'm guessing somewhere else in the colorwiki it maybe mentions that humans stop perceiving differentiation in grayscale after that amount of steps is passed, but it seems like the truth would be way less linear than that...  Just seems like a strange value to throw out there without context.... I guess I could ask Steve...

 82 
 on: June 13, 2024, 01:02:42 pm 
Started by Jeremy Roussak - Last post by Robert Roaldi
Amazing that you guys are still here, nattering.  It's kinda pointless now, though, with all the idiot right wingers gone.

"Be careful what you wish for..."

You make a good point, but I am still amazed at some of the stuff I see and read.

For example, that Tennessee preacher Greg Locke who was freaking out over witches has declared himself to be an "apostle". So glad that youtube's algorithm is keeping me in the loop about him. I suppose he'll write a new gospel soon.


 83 
 on: June 13, 2024, 10:51:55 am 
Started by Jeremy Roussak - Last post by digitaldog
The idiot right winger?  ;D
He’ll be back. 😢

 84 
 on: June 13, 2024, 10:44:20 am 
Started by Jeremy Roussak - Last post by Peter McLennan
Amazing that you guys are still here, nattering.  It's kinda pointless now, though, with all the idiot right wingers gone.

"Be careful what you wish for..."

 85 
 on: June 13, 2024, 08:35:43 am 
Started by soswow - Last post by digitaldog
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26
Myth 26: Graphing profiles


 86 
 on: June 13, 2024, 08:32:45 am 
Started by soswow - Last post by soswow
I've looked at ColorThink Pro. Seems like an expensive piece of software that would only make sense buying if I work with that professionally. I was wondering if there are free/open-source alternative? If ColorThink Pro is a photoshop, is there a gimp version, basically?

Seems like that question has been asked before, so googling is my friend. sorry for not checking first simple things.

 87 
 on: June 13, 2024, 06:51:16 am 
Started by soswow - Last post by soswow
I viewed both in ColorThink Pro and didn't see anything alarming; Nowhere do I see "its bottom part is pretty flat." The ILFORD-Semigloss-roll-2 acryl v3 has a larger color gamut (Gamut volume) compared to the other profile: 623,032 vs. 552,379, and this difference is visible in the lower area of the gamut plot.
The number of color patches AND where in colorspace they are produced can make a difference in the resulting color gamut of any profile.
Thank you! I've looked at ColorThink Pro. Seems like an expensive piece of software that would only make sense buying if I work with that professionally. I was wondering if there are free/open-source alternative? If ColorThink Pro is a photoshop, is there a gimp version, basically?

So, the fact ColorSync Utility on mac shows the black end of the gamut shape is not at the crosshair is not a problem? (see attachment)

Do you folks know how argyllcms works? Is it something okay to ask here?
What I am thinking is - is there a way to iteratively improve the profile after the initial set of patches scan/profile creation? Does it have an option of intelligently recognising where the gaps are and what more patches to generate to improve an existing profile?

 88 
 on: June 13, 2024, 06:43:06 am 
Started by Slobodan Blagojevic - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
Montepulciano.

 89 
 on: June 13, 2024, 06:40:05 am 
Started by soswow - Last post by soswow
ColorMunki has no thermal drift compensation, so it's actually not such a good idea to scan hundreds of patches - all you're actually doing do is putting more and more thermal noise to characterisation data.
hm. Interesting. Not sure what it means though. So, are you saying the longer I keep the button pressed (and it reads the data into the buffer) the hotter the sensor gets, and so the bigger the inaccuracy due to the thermal effect is? If that is the case, does it matter how many of them I scan in one "go" (one column)? I still go through just an A4 length of distance no matter if it is 10 for ccStudio or 15 for argylle (or more)? If what you say is correct it's about how long I am going through each column and how much time I give it to cool down between each column. Right?
Is there a tool that can capture direct measurements from Colormunki? So I can experiment by measuring the same patch (not moving) over and over with long runs without pauses and then plot it with time as an axis. If what you say is correct I should see some change in the measured signal. I trust what you say. Just wanted to see it first-hand.
Also, if that is the case - it means my measurement will be dependant on room temperature? Which in my part of the world (Australia) changes a lot.

 90 
 on: June 13, 2024, 06:06:05 am 
Started by soswow - Last post by Czornyj
ColorMunki has no thermal drift compensation, so it's actually not such a good idea to scan hundreds of patches - all you're actually doing do is putting more and more thermal noise to characterisation data.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10