On smart CMMs and dumb profiles
On smart CMMs and dumb profiles
- Subject: On smart CMMs and dumb profiles
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:48:28 +0100
Chris Murphy and some of the other US folks have written in favour of
the smart CMM and dumb profile workflow model. I've written in favour
of the smart profile and dumb CMM workflow model.
The spec will be updated sometime in November, I think. Some of
things being looked into include color negative scanning, smart CMMs,
and maybe a little rethinking on the subject of device link profiles
-:).
Now if the smart CMM approach wins out, then users will vote with
their feet, shifting the definition of device independence from CIE
color models to a workflow definition that says you have device
independence when you're using the same CMM.
This again will mean that as distributed color production grows, the
only sane strategy left to users is to base workflows on the OS-level
default CMM.
First, manufacturers who hope to make money by selling proprietary
CMMs will pull the plug on their own markets (as some already have by
relying on proprietary tags).
Second, manufacturers will have no knowledge of each other's
workflows, turning back the clock to pre-ICC days.
Third, users will have a hard time negotiating workflows.
Out of the US we get ideas that by and large all hark back to the
days of device dependent CEPS technologies: Color blind device
dependent link profiles, proprietary CMMs, you name it.
I think part of the explanation may be that the US is a single market
of 250 million which creates dreams of seizing and holding on to
large market chunks, and over here we've smaller markets where
companies must rely more on each other and none can hope to dominate.
This way proprietary technologies spell survival over there and
extinction over here.