• 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: Remote proofing
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Remote proofing


  • Subject: Re: Remote proofing
  • From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:22:31 +0100

If the invertible ICC rendering model is not supported in PostScript, and not in the basic PDF architecture, how is an RGB workflow with remote proofing possible?

Adobe Technical Note 5413 introduced the OutputIntent construct in January 2001. The Technical Note is available at www.adobe.com.

The previous attempt to marry the invertible ICC model with the non-invertible PostScript model was based on EPS, so why did that flounder?

The ICC Specification defines how ICC profiles may be embedded as PostScript comments in Encapsulated PostScript.

It would appear that those who originally compiled the ICC Specification had an analogy with the showpage operator in mind.

That is, the application software in which an Encapsulated PostScript file is placed is responsible for taking certain steps.

(1) The sum of scaling, skewing and rotating actions applied to the bounding box in the context of the X and Y page geometry is passed to the interpreter.

(2) The showpage operator, while is allowed in EPS, must be stripped out in order that only one showpage per page is passed to the interpreter.

(3) Comments in the form of ICC profiles could be considered in two ways,

(3a) they were to be applied before PostScript was streamed, or

(3b) they were to be applied after PostScript was streamed.

Item (3a) would be useful for upstream page design software and item (3b) would be useful for OPI and other downstream software.

There is nothing ambiguous about items (1) and (2). It is clear that the user wants geometries applied and wants embedded showpage operators stripped.

There is an ambiguity about item (3) because it is not clear if the user wants to apply conversions in the authoring software or in the repurposing software.

The ambiguity was not addressed through the addition of user interface controls which has allowed the ambiguity to remain unresolved for a decade.

Thanks,
Henrik
_______________________________________________
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.


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Remote proofing
      • From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
  • Prev by Date: Interesting information about RGB color spaces
  • Next by Date: Re: Remote proofing
  • Previous by thread: Re: Remote proofing
  • Next by thread: Re: Remote proofing
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread