Re: Gretag vs. Monaco?
Re: Gretag vs. Monaco?
- Subject: Re: Gretag vs. Monaco?
- From: Marc Levine <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:38:06 -0400
Hi all,
This list is so juicy, I just had to chime in. First of all, the scanner
profiling issue. Ezcolor uses the same core technologies as our high-end
package - MonacoPROFILER. On the link that Roger posted, you can see that
the numbers on the top 3 packages varied by about .4E. The variance between
Monaco and Gretag specifically was .08E. That's pretty small. You could
spend a day listing the processing variables that could result in
differences much greater than this. Instead of doing that, let's just say
they're all pretty good. Given the same target and the same reference data,
MonacoPROFILER and MonacoEZcolor will product the same result. In that
sense, you can get the performance of a multi-thousand dollar product for
abut $300. If you want it with the OPTIX, it's $548.
Now, on the the Eye-One display. At PMA this year, Gretag announced that
they had purchased Sequel imaging (or were - at the very least - were in the
final stages of the acquisition). The new Gretag Eye1 display is in fact a
Sequel-made device. That's not to say it's exactly the same as the
MonacoOPTIX. However, after taking a peek at the Gretag piece, I suspect
there is not much difference in the guts. The Display uses the same
"light-tunnel" technology, which is basically a fancy baffle that the allows
the instrument to measure a much more precise area - enabling it to work
very nicely with LCD monitors. So, for all intensive purposes, I would say
that the 2 devices are extremely similar on the inside. There are things
that are different about the software that drives the devices, the cosmetic
shells, and the monitor attachment methods, but I'll save that for another
day. Lastly, I think it's a testament to the quality of the device that some
notable color professionals see no difference in quality between profiles
made with the Sequel engine and those made with more expensive devices.
The Eye1 Photo. NOW WITH AMBIENT LIGHT!!!!! Um...... The unit has always
read ambient light. That's what it does when its reading your monitor. The
deal with instruments of these types is that they are highly directional. If
you change the measuring angle slightly in lighting environment you are
trying to capture, you can get dramatically different results. It's not an
issue when measuring a monitor as manufacturers typically engineer some
attachment method that mounts the instrument to the display at a static
angle (hopefully 90 degrees). I am just guessing, but I suspect that the
"new" instrument comes with an incident dome (much like you would see on a
light meter) to reduce directional errors. And - of course - if you put a
dome on the device, you probably have to tell the software that you're using
a dome. This way, the software can correct for influences related to the
dome's transmissive properties. What did Gretag need to do to the Eye1 to do
all this? I don't know. Does this mean that the Eye1 now comes with a
diffusion dome? I don't know. These are just my suspicions.
Spectral data. I have it from a reliable source (don't you just love things
that start out like this?) that the Gretag spectral data implementation is
only applicable to the perceptual intent. I think the fact that Andrew
"think(s) it's only perceptual" is very telling. I would bet that if it were
not true, we'd have seen a much stronger opinion to the contrary. I would
even hang this out there for review...
Does the ICC spec even support non-D50 illuminants for colorimetric
rendering? It occurs to me that the colorimetric intent are more about
reducing color variables - rather than introducing them. I got through a
good piece of the spec on my own, but passed out halfway through the tag
classifications. If anybody could clarify this, it would be great.
Anyhoo, it would sort-of make sense that this was the case. The perceptual
intent really allows manufacturers a lot of freedom in playing with the
intent attributes and compression algorithms. Actually, in MonacoPROFILER,
the user can adjust the compression in both the gray and color axis. This is
why Gretag can give you both "Paper Gray Axis" and "Gray Axis" Options, and
Monaco can give you a "Neutralize Gray" slider that adjusts between
perceptual grays and measurable grays. The part that I find interesting is
that, without using the perceptual intent, a user would never see the
benefits of Gretag's spectral data collection. That means that all of the
"RelCol w/BPC" transforms that people do in Photoshop using profiles built
with Spectral data (optical brightener/custom white-point) experience no
additional benefits over non-spectral profiles.
I know that this probably reads like an attempt to cut Gretag down as a
piece of software, but it's not. Gretag makes good software, Monaco makes
good software. I think that that is pretty evident from many postings. I am
more about finding the real value in technologies and exposing claims that
are left purposefully ambiguous. My email is always open for questions.
Marc
****************
Marc Levine
Monaco Systems
North American Sales Manager
Technical Sales Engineer
email@hidden
www.monacosys.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.