Re: Differences between CMMs
Re: Differences between CMMs
- Subject: Re: Differences between CMMs
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:03:46 +0100
Did anybody performed any comparison between four CMMs which are coming with
Mac OS (Apple / Agfa / Kodak / Heidelberg)(or know where can I find any
documentation describing the differences between them?)? What are the major
differences between them?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm actually hardly can see any difference (or
I'm just missing something..)
Bach when PS5 came out this was hotly debated on the List.
Adobe was saying only the Adobe CMM was any good. Users thought the
color matching intelligence was due to the CMM and not the ICC
profiles, which didn't reduce the overall confusion. Since PS5 was
wired wrong and basically didn't work with ICC color management, the
debate was idle.
Adobe still doesn't have a public CMM, but the one the company embeds
in its software gives close on the same results as the Apple CMM and
the Heidelberg CMM.
The Agfa CMM is best forgotten. It's the only CMM that doesn't know
how to give you a media white simulation. It appeared with ColorSync
2.6, but I didn't install it with ColorSync 3 and still haven't.
The Kodak CMM was heavily geared to proprietary tags in Kodak ICC
profiles, but seems to give more equal results now with non-Kodak
profiles, suggesting the proprietary tags have been switched off.
The original reason for allowing proprietary tags in ICC profiles was
to let companies add 'secret sauce' value and make money, but the
concept backfired. Inverting the ICC framework to allow color
matching smarts into the CMM while profiles turn into dumb
colorimetric repositories will take us back to base 1, I think.
Hope this helps.
--
Henrik Holmegaard
TechWrite, Denmark