Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Camera Calibration  (Read 8255 times)
photo570
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


WWW
« on: August 14, 2012, 08:01:27 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 08:06:41 PM by photo570 » Logged

Jason Berge
www.shoot.co.nz
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1400



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2012, 04:12:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I achieved decent results with ArgyllCMS
Logged

deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778



« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2012, 09:11:28 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2012, 09:27:17 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778



« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2012, 11:44:45 AM »
ReplyReply

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 ?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2012, 11:50:01 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
photo570
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2012, 03:42:22 PM »
ReplyReply

"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.
Logged

Jason Berge
www.shoot.co.nz
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778



« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2012, 04:37:57 PM »
ReplyReply

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 ?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2012, 05:01:09 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2012, 06:23:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
LenR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140



« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2012, 06:25:07 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 06:31:42 PM by LenR » Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1400



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2012, 11:32:56 PM »
ReplyReply

"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.
Logged

deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778



« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2012, 11:40:33 PM »
ReplyReply

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




Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778



« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2012, 11:52:29 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2012, 08:25:28 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Stephen G
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2012, 10:26:23 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 778



« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2012, 10:35:37 AM »
ReplyReply

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  Cool

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)
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2012, 11:05:46 AM »
ReplyReply

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

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2012, 11:54:21 AM »
ReplyReply

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

Source?
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2012, 12:03:48 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad