Re: If ColorByte can do it why can't Epson?
Re: If ColorByte can do it why can't Epson?
- Subject: Re: If ColorByte can do it why can't Epson?
- From: "Cris Daniels" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:29:30 -0500
The "recipe" is part of the driver for each printer. Initally it was going to
be the case that each profile had the recipe embedded, but one reason I know
that they opted not to make that the standard was so that people could profile
the RIP without using a proprietary profiler. The original recipes were
embedded in the ICC profile header. Currently, the recipie is in the driver
and as you can see, the printers usually exhibit excellent grey balance and
density (in prints and for printing raw targets). This makes profiling pretty
simple, the profile isn't asked to correct hideous attibutes of the device
behavior. The recipe also knows the exact color and density of the inkset.
This is why using Gen4 inks in a 1270 will require a seperate recipe, both the
color and density are not equivalent to the Epson ink formulation. The
blending points, density adjustments, and other things that the recipe
controls will be rendered invalid. This is the reason that people complain
about the lack of "real printer controls" in ImagePrint, although there is no
way that the end user would be able to actually improve upon the settings that
were created by Colorbyte for these printer/ink combos. It is done by a pretty
complex system and is much more complicated than a simple linearization
operation that is included with most rips. The moral of the story is that it
is very easy to profile a printer with ImagePrint if you are not totally
satisfied with the output. The proof that it all works is in the prints. Hope
that help to clarify the recipe situation.
Cris Daniels
_______________________________________________
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.