Linearization changes the behavior by constructing a curve from its own linearization measurements. Just like a RIP, the ICC target is pass through the curves, resulting in a new “curved” target. You must use the lin data in MonacoPROFILER to curve the target – otherwise the process doesn’t work. When you advance from the linearization stage to the profiling stage, the lin curves are loaded under the hood and used to change the target values. That is why a linearized target has different values than an unlinearized target.
Yes, I understand. The MP linearization *does not* change the way the RIP/deivce prints prior to profiling in the same way that a printer's or RIP's linearization does. MP's "linearization" is just used to create a customized target for that device. This is why I think it is dangerous to call it a linearization. If we call it "linearization" then people like Darren understandably worry about double linearizing the device which they needn't be concerned about. I don't know where this pre-lin term came from but, if anything it should be considered a post-lin or pre-profile step.
I'm not sure what to call it but it is a great feature of MP. Unfortunately, very few people seem to understand our use it. It could be because its called "linearization" or it could be that MP's documentation doesn't explain it's functionality properly. To be honest, no one else that I've spoken to at X-Rite seems to understand it or is able to recommend when it should be used.
The documentation reads: "Using linearization data is not recommended unless the printer or its associated RIP does not have its own linearization option" Perhaps it should read something like: "Using linearization data is recommended when optimal linearization and gray balance is needed. This feature can be used in conjunction with a printer or RIP's own linearization option." After all, 90% of the time I use it, its with a device that does have its own linearization option.
Speaking with you Marc, is always a pleasure. Your knowledge, perspective and explanations are greatly appreciated.
Scott Martin www.on-sight.com
|