Re: FOGRA39 released
Re: FOGRA39 released
- Subject: Re: FOGRA39 released
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:16:41 -0800
Title: Re: FOGRA39 released
At 12:08 AM +0000 12/29/06, Martin Orpen wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006, at 19:21, Steve Upton
wrote:
My understanding is that the ISO is not
happy with this naming convention and I have heard some confusion in
the user community about these being the 'definitive' ISO
profiles.
They are good profiles (historically) but we should be careful about
them being promoted (even unintentionally) as the definitive profiles
of the ISO. Perhaps something like ECI Coated v2 (ISO)
instead?
Interesting comment Steve, but what are you saying here?
Are there more "definitive" ISO
profiles?
Well, what I meant was that it appears as though the ISO itself
defined them (or at least sanctioned them), which it did not. The ECI
created them based on FOGRA data that was created according to ISO
standard(s). The danger of having people think that they come FROM the
ISO is that there is some sort of implicit guarantee, etc. put forth
by the ISO.
So they are, first and foremost, ECI profiles. Again, they're
good profiles but they are not the ISO's profiles and any other group
that created & shared profiles based on the same data would have
some confusion (or create confusion) naming them.
Or do you prefer the profile names to be the result of a more
straightforward business transaction like Euroscale or
Eurostandard?
Or more like SWOP - which is whatever a bunch of blokes in a room
agree it should be?
well, the TR001 dataset was actually much better defined than
that. The SWOP system certification is a different issue entirely but
was still based on printed sheets that fit designated print specs....
but that's all water under the bridge now that IDEAlliance is
redefining the entire certification process.
I'm in the "user community" and
I'm confused...
sorry about that, didn't want to create more confusion!
It may seem like splitting hairs but when dealing with large
numbers of profiles and concerned about naming conventions, standard
print conditions and so forth, it comes up as an important
issue.
To answer the (possibly forthcoming) question: "But why
would you want to create additional 'ISO' profiles when the ECI has
already done it?" I can offer at least one answer: Black
generation - it's handy to have a suite of profiles with different
black generation levels for different image types, etc...
I realize that I didn't offer a naming convention to replace it
but perhaps this will prompt discussion to come up with
something.
Hope that clears things up.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve
Upton
CHROMiX
www.chromix.com
________________________________________________________________________
--
_______________________________________________
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