Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
- Subject: Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
- From: Steve Kale <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:45:28 +0000
- Thread-topic: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
"aren't any good"
> From: Steve Kale <email@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:23:46 +0000
> To: John W Lund <email@hidden>, <email@hidden>
> Conversation: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
> Subject: Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
>
>
> Thanks John:
>
>> From: John W Lund <email@hidden>
>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:02:47 -0800
>> To: <email@hidden>
>> Cc: Steve Kale <email@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
>>
>> Hello Steve,
>>
>> Just wanted to add to Dan Reid's comments --
>>
>> You *can* use an EyeOne (UV-cut or not) to linearize & profile with X-Proof.
>> It's just that they used UV-cut X-Rite devices to build their
>> linearizations, so to *re-linearize* successfully, you must use the same
>> instrument (a UV-cut Pulse). Likewise, to profile using their SpectralVision
>> Pro module, you must use an X-Rite device.
>
> Which means you're kind of screwed because their profiles are any good for
> you if you linearize with a non-UV cut spectro.
>>
>> I have used a non-UV EyeOne to build a new linearization, and successfully
>> profiled with EyeOne iO & ProfileMaker Pro. So you can use a non-UV spectro
>> and external profiling software with X-Proof with no problems, *as long as
>> you use papers with fairly neutral whites*.
>
> One of the attractions of Colorburst is the built in profiling - it saves
> you having to spend $2.5k (or more if you live in the UK) on PM5.
>>
>> However, I have seen this approach break when applied to some papers
>> containing fluorescent whitening agents. A non-UV spectro reads the whites
>> of such papers as being significantly "blue" (*b values < -3 in L*a*b*).
>> This can lead to a linearization file with a spike in the yellow highlights
>> (forcing the RIP to lay down yellow ink in those values, instead of allowing
>> them to approach paper white/no inks).
>>
>> Apparently this behavior is related to ColorBurst's choosing to use Chroma
>> values for linearization. At any rate, the yellow cast in the highlights is
>> not something a ProfileMaker Pro profile can correct for, so for these kinds
>> of papers I have gone with their recommendation of using a UV-cut Pulse &
>> their profiling engine.
>>
>> Strangely enough, this behavior doesn't always hold true. Using my non-UV
>> EyeOne & PM Pro, I got great results with Epson Enhanced Matte paper (WP
>> read as b* = -5) & big trouble with Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl (WP read as b*
>> = -6). Go figure...
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> com
>
> This email sent to 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