Dana Rasmussen wrote:
> To those using the linearization function on ProfileMaker, or
> MonacoProfiler. Does this improve the profile? Opinions on which method
> works better? Monaco creates a new target, Profilemaker applies the data to
> a already made profile.
There is a fundamental difference:
Monaco uses the linearization to customise/modify the charts to create a
better fit for one particular printer. This is especially an advantage on
very un-linear printers.
GretagMacbeth's post linearisation is a means to realign a profile if the
device has changed slightly due to changes in humidity, temperature or the
The two can't really be compared.
> Thoughts on how this compares to using a RIP?
If you have a RIP which has a lousy linearization the pre-linearization of
the targets will probably improve the results. That is unless you know how
to achieve a similar result manually in ProfileMaker, which oyu can by
creating your own charts in Measuretool.
On a well linearized rip it won't mean a thing in practical terms...
However if the problem is the linearization of the printer you will get MUCH
better results by getting that part right, rather then trying to fix it when
profiling. Callibration is calibration and profiling is profiling - never
shal the twain meet (sort of anyway).
Thomas Holm / Pixl Aps
- Photographer, Educator, Colour Management Consultant & Seminar speaker
- Remote Profiling Service (Output ICC profiles)
- www.pixl.dk · Email: th[AT]pixl.dk
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden