Re: Editing profiles [was New EyeOne ruler and soft case]
Re: Editing profiles [was New EyeOne ruler and soft case]
- Subject: Re: Editing profiles [was New EyeOne ruler and soft case]
- From: Thomas Holm/pixl <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:30:53 +0100
On 04/11/2005, at 5.30, Graeme Gill wrote:
Thomas Holm/pixl wrote:
It's called GMG Colorproof or ORIS Colortuner, has been around
for years, and it works a treat. Only it's not profiling
applications in the traditional sense but rather propritary
applications that will build devicelink profiles to make the best
possible translation of data from one color space/device to another.
I've played around with this idea recently, while staying within
the ICC framework (see <http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/refine.html>),
but so far I'm unconvinced that it does much, unless you start
out with fairly inaccurate profiles. If you start out with
reasonable profiles, iterating doesn't get significantly
better - you're still limited by the repeatability of the
instrument and the device.
Well the name of the game in Europe these days is pretty much proof
verification, IE using the Fogra Mediawedge v2 to verify that your
simulations (proofs) are as good as they can be.
When using standard ICC tools (GMB, Heidelberg and a few others) and
verifying the proofs, I get an average deviation of around 2 and a
maximum deviation of between 4-6 depending on what I simulate. THis
is measured with two different, recently recalibrated, Eye One's
which pretty much agree.
If, on the same printer, using the same paper and same spectro as
above I use GMG, or CGS for that matter, and do iterative
measurements, My average usually drops to below 1 and the max
deviation is usualy around 2-2,5 (A notable difference is Epson 4800
where the MAgenta primary usually ends up at dE 2,7 when simulating
Fogra 27 as it is essentially out of gamut).
I'm not interested in a pissing contest between ICC and propritary
soloutions. ICC works pretty well in it's current state, but there
are limitations which frankly I don't understand. I can only guess
it's the math or the color appearence model or gremlins. Iterative
soloutions seem to overcome the limitations though and give bettwe
results, both measurable and visual. It's not a great deal of
difference, and to many it may be inconsequential - but it's there.
Best Regards
Thomas Holm / Pixl Aps
- Colour Management Consultant
- Seminars speaker and tutor on CM and Digital Imaging etc.
- Apple Solutions Expert
- Member, ColorManagementGroup.com
- www.pixl.dk ยท email@hidden
--
_______________________________________________
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