Re: X-Rite color management (was Eye-One Diagnostics)
Re: X-Rite color management (was Eye-One Diagnostics)
- Subject: Re: X-Rite color management (was Eye-One Diagnostics)
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:40:51 -0700
on 1/5/04 5:25 PM, Marc Levine wrote:
>
These are not procedures that the average user could likely perform, so it
>
seemed kind of moot to mention them - "Regular Joes like yourself" probably
>
don't have a spectro-radiometer lying around the house
Thank you! This was EXACTLY what I was looking for. No, I don't have one
laying around the house but wouldn't be great to fine one on ebay some day!
>
If
>
you like, you could make a few profiles for yourself and simply evaluate the
>
difference between the Monaco package and whatever else you like.
OK, that's the next best approach until I find that spectro-radiometer. What
would you suggest for evaluating the profiles themselves? Is the gamut size
(which many seem to look at first) really an indicator of the quality of
either the profile or characterizing? What would one be looking for assuming
they used two instruments (and the same host software to level the playing
field)?
>
Keep in
>
mind though that evaluating profiles and evaluating instrument accuracy are
>
2 different things and my posting is probably long enough as it is.
OK so getting back to the instrument spec's, are we at a point where either
device would produce the same results (assuming the same host software which
has to play a role) as far as the user is concerned? In other words, are
either device spec's at a level of accuracy beyond what we'd be able to
benefit from? If not, is there a spec at which one should take notice of?
Let's take a scanner as an analogy. Most of us know that the spec's for
dynamic range are spotty at best but they do provide some idea of where the
scanner stands (dynamic range spec of 2.8 verses 3.4 is a huge difference
even if both are off).
I ask this based on a very eye opening exercise done many years ago. Using
Optical due to the large number of instruments supported, I used several
instruments on one display naively expecting to get nearly identical results
only to find pretty extreme differences in the final calibration and
profiles. Of course it's not all that easy to switch profiles and evaluate
effectively which instrument did a "better" job (hence the origin of this
question).
It's a lot easier to profile a printer using several packages (and even the
same Spectrophotometer) and compare what you get from the same test image.
When it comes to displays, it's a lot more difficult.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.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.