Re: Apple CMM and Heidelberg CMM
Re: Apple CMM and Heidelberg CMM
- Subject: Re: Apple CMM and Heidelberg CMM
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:48:37 +0200
Chris Murphy <email@hidden> wrote:
You are bastardizing the proprietary and
non-open CMM's, and yet you make no similar complaint regarding the
proprietary nature of the contents of ICC profiles themselves.
...
Making CMM's smarter (and by definition MORE proprietary) is the only way
I can think of to improve this technology and make it easier to use. We
are at the limits of what can be achieved with 'smart' profiles that
don't have a single bit of code in them.
Are we asking the same question? My question is, What does device
independence mean?
The idea until now was that device independence ties into the use of
a default CMM. Salvaging ColorSync out of the smoking remains of
QuickDraw GX, Apple wasn't able to offer it's own CMM, probably for
many reasons, partly political and partly technological. The second
critical point came when ColorSync 3 for Windows was pulled for
political reasons. So in that sense you can say that the realities
have spoken against the concept of a default CMM.
On the other hand there is much to be said for the concept of a
common known CMM still. And to be honest, ICM1 and the Agfa CMM for
ColorSync 2.6 did not suggest to me that users have fewer problems
with more CMMs.
You seem to have shifted away from seeing much sense in in-RIP color.
This was a thread through a couple of years, the point being that the
destination space in the conversion isn't user controlled. In the
on-going CMM thread there is a self-evident business reason for smart
CMMs, but what is the workflow reason, how does it help users in the
trenches? If there is extra precision, at what cost does that come in
terms of complexity?
(Sorry for the delay in responding but Gertie the G3 was the recent
victim of a rogue RAM reseller...-:).)
--
Henrik Holmegaard
TechWrite, Denmark