(no subject)
(no subject)
- Subject: (no subject)
- From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:25:43 +0200
bruce fraser <email@hidden>
>Big targets *tend* (note emphasis) to give you accuracy at the cost
>of smoothness. Small targets *tend* to give you smoothness at the
>cost of accuracy.
There are no hard and fast rules, and the number of measured patches
does not equate to the quality of the printer profile (duly noted in
the cookbooks). But in talking about accuracy I would much rather point
to extended test charts, higher resolution device profiles (raising
awareness that there is a choice of settings for the proofing transform
... just as there is for the papers used for proofing), and faster
measuring instruments than to complexities like device link profiles
and retaining of black replacement which have been themes since the
printing industry started to take an interest in device independent
color proofing. The first choice is a modular conversion. The idea in
the FOGRA initiative that played a part in the formation of the ICC was
for users to create device profiles for their in-house hardware setups,
and to exchange device profiles when building virtual color simulation
networks. The ECI2002 chart enhances the original concept of the device
profile workflow for standards-based modularity and flexibility.
Just my ten cents.
_______________________________________________
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.