On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Nils Frohberg wrote:
>
> This got me thinking a bit. If I understand it correctly, the main
> reason for not releasing standard profiles for scanners is QC and
> change in the lighting system during its lifetime.
Profiles are really nothing more than data points for a transform function
which maps the input (the scan) to a known reference (the IT8). In an
ideal world the device manufacturer would have calibrated the device to
the standard and a profile would not be needed. In reality there is quite
a bit of variance between the standard and what the device actually delivers.
Devices also change over time and profiles help keep those changes to a
minimum as long as you regularly profile the device.
> Does this make a bigger difference than choosing a different film?
> If using the wrong film profile doesn't reflect in a big difference
> in the scan, won't using the profile of another scanner of the same
> type (e.g. another FS4000) result in even a smaller difference?
Scanner profiles should be independent of the film type used, but in
practice scanners react differently depending on what film is inserted.
For example, Kodachrome scans very differently than Provia and a Provia
profile would not work well for Kodachrome. A Provia profile would probably
work well enough with other similar E6 films though. There will be a far
greater difference between two scanners than there would be between two
similar film types.
-mark
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|