RE: Profilemaker 3.1 vs. PrintOpen 4.0
RE: Profilemaker 3.1 vs. PrintOpen 4.0
- Subject: RE: Profilemaker 3.1 vs. PrintOpen 4.0
- From: "Broudy, David" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:51:08 -0600
>
-----Original Message-----
>
From: Henrik Holmegaard [mailto:email@hidden]
>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:20 PM
>
To: email@hidden
>
Subject: Re: Profilemaker 3.1 vs. PrintOpen 4.0
>
>
>
"Broudy, David" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>also noticed that the Mac version of PO4 creates profiles
>
with a different
>
>gamut shape than the Windoze version when both are fed the
>
same input data,
>
>if I then use MeasureTool to compare them
>
>
Hmm...why'd you use the MeasureTool, and I wonder how.
oops. I actually used Printopen to compare the resulting profiles.
I used MT for measuring targets because that's what came with the iProfile
bundle. I got Printopen rather recently and discovered that all of the
readings I'd made with the Gretag software were pretty much stuck on Planet
Gretag. as for "how", well, there's pretty much only one way to read a
target with MT far as I can see but I think you're asking how I opened
profiles in MT when it can only deal with ascii data ;)
eventually I'll standardize on one or the other for the whole process. I
haven't had a chance yet to do production tests using profiles from each app
created with the same data set to make a determination. I would not expect
that there are more than very minor differences between the seps produced by
each. might be surprised, though.
profile editing abilities seem comparable between the two.
>
>that aside, what are some objective reasons to prefer one
>
app over another?
>
>both drive my spectroscan fine. I'm using the IT8 CMYK
>
target; any reason
>
>not to? I chose it because it can be used with either app.
>
>
This is one of those things, like black backing -:). The
>
IT8.7-3 is not
>
visually spaced, so there are redundant patches. The
>
recommended PrintOpen
>
testchart is the 840 patch extended, and the recommended ProfileMaker
>
testchart is the TC6.02. That said there has been much work done on
>
improving the results for IT8.7-3 data sets.
Since I can read data files exported from Printopen with Gretag's tools,
I've been using PO to do the readings ever since I found out that PO hates
Measuretool's data. I'd rather use Measuretool as it seems to drive the
Spectroscan quite a bit more quickly than PO does, but whatever.
D hates MS Outlook but that's what they foisted on me; sorry about the goofy
line breaks B.