Re: ICC DCAM, CapturePro and Last but not least COLOREYES
Re: ICC DCAM, CapturePro and Last but not least COLOREYES
- Subject: Re: ICC DCAM, CapturePro and Last but not least COLOREYES
- From: Paul Guba <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:54:51 -0400
On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Derrick L. Brown (Dallas)
wrote:
>
Paul writes..................
>
>
> Well Jack if you plan on an upgrade for Dcam users why not put that on
>
> your site so we know. Just a suggestion people may jump to the wrong
>
> conclusions. The web is a great tool for such things.
>
>
This all seems so easy doesnt it?
>
I am sure I should respond more regularly, but time doesnt always
>
permit
>
it.
>
Firstly..............
>
Remember the panic/thrashing of the ideals of "matchphrases" of a couple
>
weeks ago here? I did respond, and there will be an upgrade to DCAM
>
users.
>
No one would ever abandon their loyal client base.
>
I am here to say "YES" there will be an upgrade path for DCAM users and
>
it
>
will be "Dongle" protected.
>
Details are not being held back, they are being posted as they are
>
available, and correct the first time out. This should minimize all
>
peoples
>
confusion, past, present and future.
>
>
Then Paul writes..
>
While your at it
>
> perhaps you can explain why no support for the DC target. Do you feel
>
> it is inferior in some way?
>
>
Speaking as probably the first authorized reseller/trainer in North
>
America,
>
circa 1994, for Phase One, Imacon, ColorBlind, and yes......PROFILE
>
CITY/basICColor we have done a "bit of research" on how high end digital
>
camerabacks behave.
You can forward me your resume if you like I never questioned your
background.
>
>
After many months of cooperative testing (going way back), specifically
>
cameras, with Franz Herbert we developed a methodology with was
>
incorporated
>
into a "Knock Your Socks Off" product called ColorBlind. That was
>
1995. It
>
used the MacBeth card (24 patches).
Was there another commercial camera target available then? Just
wondering.
>
During the past seven years we have
>
watched, tested approaches, even pulled a lot of hair out (for those who
>
have met me, you know what I mean) and re-tested and co-developed again.
>
>
Basically we need to understand that camerabacks are way more than some
>
"scanner on a stick", and the dynamics of "Live Set" photography have
>
many
>
"emotional" definitions of accurate.
>
The ColorEyes product has many "code" enhancements and a comprehensive
>
"how
>
to guide" and live people to talk you through your issues with your
>
cameras.
>
>
Regarding the DCChecker(224patches) versus the MACBETH(24
>
patches)............here we go...........
>
The DC worked "ok" in our opinion with DCAM and other products. Sorry,
>
we're not shooting for OK here. We are shooting for the best! Also,
>
sorry
>
since I am not here to slam any manufacturers product, thatsall I need
>
to
>
say regarding the DC Checker. Specifically, over the years remember
>
all
>
the threads on how many patches to make a good printer profile? It
>
isn't
>
only quantity.
Somewhere you have to factor in the software in that formula. A package
may use more or less patches I don't really care. Its results I want.
If you are saying it works best with this I have no reason not to
believe you. I do not believe it invalidates another product that uses
something else however. Your new product has "This is the ultimate
camera profiling package. Each target print created by us is shipped
with a serialized reference file . There are over 1000 patches on a
glossy print providing a wide selection of deep saturated colors" So
here is more better or is it more right patches?
>
It is more about the "right" colors.
Why? I have to believe there is a reason
>
Just about everyone owns a MACBETH card that owns a camera, or they are
>
about to buy one.
I've been a pro photographer for many years I don't nor did any studio I
worked at. I wasn't planning on buying one but it looks like I may need
to now.
>
Quite frankly our testing shows favorable results for the
>
MacBeth over DCChecker.
This is all I really wanted. We tested it and feel this is best for our
product. I actually like the idea of your honesty here. Why have the
other target supported if this one works the best. So you support one
target it makes very good profiles. Instead of two with the second one
making only marginal ones this is perfectly reasonable. Actually I wish
ProfileCity had done this.
More good news????? They are much more affordable and WIDELY AVAILABLE.
I agree with you here.
>
>
Camera operational software has more to do with this the target itself.
Could you explain this please. I'm not sure what you mean.
>
>
The goal of the ColorEyes product is straightforward..........A product
>
that
>
anyone can use to make a stellar camera profile. Regardless of type of
>
camera or lighting preference. It is not software for your old umax,
>
nor
>
your 3900 Drum, nor your monitor or printer. It is not an "Oh by the
>
way
>
lets do cameras too", Its just for cameras.
I look forward to seeing it. Please inform me and this list when the
upgrade is available. If its reasonably priced I'm sure many will
upgrade.
>
>
Thank you for taking the time
Its what I do.
>
>
Derrick L. Brown
>
>
Integrated Color Corporation
>
81 Rogers Street
>
N. Billerica, MA 01862
>
>
tel: 978-670-1416
>
fax: 978-670-8701
>
url: www.integrated-color.com
Not really the ICC just the same initials as the International Color
Consortium.
_______________________________________________
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.