RE: WMU Profiling Review 1.0 / Vendor Response
RE: WMU Profiling Review 1.0 / Vendor Response
- Subject: RE: WMU Profiling Review 1.0 / Vendor Response
- From: "Marc Aguilera" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:50:11 -0800
ColorBlind Software gladly offers its current applications as well as
any future products available for testing, providing the parameters are
fair and well thought out.
Terry Wyse's questions directly reflect our own as we read the analysis:
>
* The reference data used for the various scanning targets, was it
>
"generic" batch data or were the targets actually custom measured prior
to >scanning/profiling? If so, with what?
This is an extremely valid point. The accuracy of read color is profound
in the overall performance of a resultant profile. If the batch data was
used as reference data then the resultant data may be flawed due to the
unavoidable discrepancy between the individual manufactured target and
it's methodology of acquiring reference data for that particular batch
allotment. We often recommend users build their own custom reference
files for their given targets. We have been testing the Barbieri 100 xy
and the consistency of its calibration to white is built to be dEab
under 0.02. If a value is higher the unit must be recalibrated. When
producing Kodak IT8 Q60 reflective reference files, and then producing
an input profile, the results are ALWAYS visually better than a profile
built with batch reference data.
I am sure there will be more discussion regarding this paper.
It's disconcerting that we were not "informed" of the potential of being
part of such an analysis. As said before, we will gladly offer software
to WMU for consideration of future analysis.
Marc Aguilera
ColorBlind Software
www.color.com
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.