User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
Mark Rice wrote:
I think the following exchange explains why many users are unhappy with the
state of color management, and flee toward solutions like GMG:
No, Bill, not according to what I have. I'm looking at the reference
file named "ECI2002R CMYK.txt" that came with ProfileMaker 5.0.5b:
position 2S16 does carry a C100, M0, Y0, K0 value, and so does the
patch in the same position in its corresponding testchart file, named
"ECI2002R CMYK.tif".
Interestingly, I solved that particular problem in my CMS by
never separating the device values from the instrument readings.
This was mostly to allow for custom generated charts, but also
to avoid these sorts of problems. I think Gretag has migrated
to a file format that does a similar thing, but there is
still a problem when dealing with standardized charts
such as ECI2002 that is difficult to avoid. The best
that can be done is to have the reading program have an
expectation of what the readings should be, and warn the
user if there is a gross mismatch (that's what I've
done for the DTP52, DT41 etc., to protect against strips
getting mixed up), or even search for, and suggest a better
matching reference file under such conditions (ie.,
if it's an ECI2002, compare against random and non-random
layouts).
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/email@hidden
