• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: To iterate or not to iterate?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: To iterate or not to iterate?


  • Subject: Re: To iterate or not to iterate?
  • From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:31:02 -0500

I've thought about the same thing. Here's what I would envision using GMB's Profile Editor:

* Set up profile editing "workflow" using a source (press?) and destination (inkjet?) profile.
* Select the original measurement data used to build the source profile or, in the case of a GMB profile, extract the measurement data from the profile itself.
* Print a profiling target through this workflow on the inkjet device, measure the result and import the measurement data into the profile editor. Now you're using the ACTUAL measurement data resulting from the profile conversion rather than the "measurement data" that is PREDICTED by the conversion.
* Using the actual vs. predicted measurement data, perform the necessary profile edits to the profile of your choice and create a new optimized profile for that particular "workflow".
* The icing on the cake would the option to store these profile edits so subsequent "iterations" could be further optimized.


Basically we're asking for "intelligent" profile editing based on the actual results vs. the predicted results. I'd be the first person to step up and buy such a product if it were available....at a reasonable price. :-)


Cheers, Terry



On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:16 AM, Marco Ugolini wrote:

That got me thinking:

Why aren't ProfileMaker (which I use), or Monaco Profiler for that matter,
capable of building profiles using an iterative procedure? (Or is it already
possible, and I'm being clueless...?)


The present (non-iterative) way should be left in place, of course, but an
iterative routine should be available as an option (shouldn't it?) for those
who are willing to spend the extra time to attain a superior level of color
accuracy.


I may be naïve for asking, but why not? Could anyone from Gretag or X-Rite
please reply and offer a thought or two? Thanks in advance.
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
email@hidden
704.843.0858
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com
http://www.wyseconsul.com (coming soon)

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: To iterate or not to iterate?
      • From: "Bob Frost" <email@hidden>
    • Re: To iterate or not to iterate?
      • From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
References: 
 >To iterate or not to iterate? (From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: matching proofs
  • Next by Date: Re: To iterate or not to iterate?
  • Previous by thread: RE: To iterate or not to iterate?
  • Next by thread: Re: To iterate or not to iterate?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread