Re: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
Re: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
- Subject: Re: ECI 2002V or 2002R?
- From: neil snape <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:36:49 +0200
on 28/09/2002 14:30, Terry Wyse at email@hidden wrote:
>
on 9/28/02 4:18 AM, Henrik Holmegaard wrote:
>
>
> First, the ECI2002 should be used for the proofing process. And
>
> proofing profiles should be built with the highest possible resolution
>
> in the B2A1 table.
Yes I think the original poster mentioned profiling a press. Definitely the
highest res for the proofing table is important yet the chart doesn't change
the number of grid points only the measurement points to average or median.
>
Guys,
>
>
In the last two weeks I've profiled two proofing systems (Dupont WaterProof
>
and Fuji ColorArt, one press on two different stocks (coated/uncoated) and
>
three inkjet devices (a pair of Epson 10Ks and a 9600). The 9600 was a
>
BestColor job and the two 10Ks were Rampage ICC. This is the first few jobs
>
where I've started using the ECI2002 charts with PM 4.1. As always, I'm
>
using my trusted Spectroscan to measure the targets (feel my pain!).
You don't trust an i1 or icColor yet? Much faster.
>
As you can guess, the measuring time has just been killing me as it takes
>
anywhere from 1 hr. (non-UV) to 1 hr. and 10' (UV filter) to read these
>
charts. So the last job I decided to run both the TC3.5 (500+ patches) and
>
the ECI2002 charts (1500 patches) side-by-side. Know what I found? The
>
inkjet proof that used the ECI2002 was NO BETTER than the one using the
>
TC3.5 chart, in fact the proof using the TC3.5 chart was ever so slightly
>
smoother with less "posterization" artifacts in gradations and tonal
>
transitions. Now, would somebody please tell me why I need to take 4 times
>
as long to read a chart that gives no better and possibly inferior results?
>
I'm not really doubting that the ECI2002 chart is "better" but it hasn't
>
shown to be the case in the final results.
I've seen this before too. So many times we've seen the number game thrown
at the solution without caution towards the variables that necessitate a
chart adapted to the conditions at hand. What's interesting is often the
reports of the profiles created with high patch numbers were indeed good but
might have been as good or better with a lower number. PrintOpen for example
can work very well with the modest charts without going to the extended 4
page charts. Ah but again I should qualify this to inkjets.
>
My own theory is that it has to do with pre-calibration and linearity. In
>
both systems, BestColor and Rampage ICC, you linearize the device prior to
>
profiling and you can even create a specific amount of builit-in dot gain
>
into the device prior to printing your profiling target. That's why I think
>
the TC3.5 chart simply works as the device is already "behaving" properly to
>
start with.
I agree completely , and IMO the results on MY printers proves this.
>
The ECI2002 chart sure looks impressive to a customer but for my money I'm
>
probably going to go back the trusted TC3.5 target and save myself HOURS of
>
measuring time.
The clients time put towards this is probably better used on training of
using the ICC CM workflow better , rather than betting on the possible
quality gains on a high patch chart. For those who have the time though it's
good to have the choice isn't it?
>
Just my $.02 worth, and I could be wrong (I've been wrong once before). ;-)
Yes, me too as you noticed.
I'm getting a little behind with PM 4.1, does anyone know what Gray plus
(don't have PM 4.1 on under Os9.2.2) would be for?
Neil Snape email@hidden
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape
_______________________________________________
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.