Re: define linearization
Re: define linearization
- Subject: Re: define linearization
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:07:23 +0200
Graeme Gill <email@hidden> wrote:
>
the fact is that building printers is
>
the printer manufacturers area of expertise, ... Why should the printer
>
manufacturer invest resources in stuff that (in its own way) is just as
>
difficult as developing new printer technology, to fulfil the requirements
>
of a small fraction of its customers ?
Because the user base today is composed of people looking to short run color
as much as to traditional long run color, and in both cases to the ICC
framework for separation and simulation.
The 'graphic arts' market is no longer a tigthly defined vertical one, but a
very broad one in which people with diverse levels of skill are looking for
solutions they can grasp and turn to use.
>
the RIP licences are as useful and
>
valuable as an instance of a physical product
Agreed, but the RIP handles what comes out of the applications users work in
and as such is less easy to win appreciation for, given that as a rule users
don't know what comes out of the applications they work in.
Desktop publishing brought the concept that the screen shows everything, and
PDF cemented the concept because it renders to the screen what the EPS
reduced to its gray non-preview box obviously cannot.
So the RIP (and the color server) is not very visible as a valuable product
at this point, and yet it's hard to imagine soft proofs replacing proof
prints as the basis of communicating color.
'We know we need RIPs, but we don't quite know why' might sum it up.
_______________________________________________
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.