Re: ColorBurst RIP update
Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- Subject: Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:43:40 -0600
First, ColorBurst does NOT require a UV-cut spectro for linearization.
That's correct.
And of course, one should never mix UV and non-UV devices for linerization and profiling. So, if you re-lin using one for their supplied lins, you should use a UV-cut Pulse. If you're building your own, doesn't matter.
I have found that in some cases a UV filtered device will yield superior results. That's ColorBurst's stance as well.
Thirdly, the Linearization Feature in ColorBurst and MonacoPROFILER are two different things.
True. But if you are using either of them you will, in some cases, get better results when using a UV filter.
2 UV or not UV? That is the question!... Frankly, I find the whole notion of UV-cut vs. no filter to be somewhat of a red herring. I've profiled inkjet proofing media and press stocks with optical brighteners (b* values in the range of -3 to -8) and have never had a problem
With PMP I don't see a difference but with SpectralVision and MonacoProfiler I have found instances in which using a non-UV device led to problems. Small problems that would be insignificant to some, but problems nonetheless.
I completely understand your points but I think if you stray from inkjet proofing you'll find a number of instances which suggest ColorBurst's recommendation of a UV filtered device is a good one.
Scott Martin www.on-sight.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