Re: ColorBurst RIP update
Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- Subject: Re: ColorBurst RIP update
- From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:40:01 -0600
I’ve built literally thousands of profiles through ProfileMaker Pro, most to ink jet and photo printers and haven’t seen any issues with a non UV EyeOne Pro. So what’s up here?
Me too and like you, I haven't seen any significant differences with PMP. I do see a differences when I use SpectralVision and MonacoProfiler which don't have the compensation checkbox.
Robin's email is enlightening but the results still speak for themselves. I've gone into huge shops and profiled Lambda, Lightjets, inkjet printers, solvent and UV curable machines with and without a UV filter and made comparison prints with all the profiles on all the machines. I find I get the best consistency with MP using their "linearization" custom target generation feature and a UV filter and with ColorBurst's SpetralVision implementation on the machines that require a RIP. Kodak Metallic photo paper is a weird beast that although it has no OBs, it clearly profiles best with a UV filter (in CB or MP, not PMP). Consistency across a large variety of devices is something that I value highly but may not be a big priority to people with fewer devices.
If someone needs to buy a new spectro to use with ColorBurst, they have always recommended getting a UV device so that all papers (with or without OBs) can be calibrated and profiled in their software. I certainly agree with that. Now, their upcoming LAB based lin is big news and that might change their recommendation.
I feel that with ColorBurst's and MonacoProfiler's existing technology there are definite (albeit small) benefits from using a UV device. With ProfilerMakerPro there is not. XRite and ColorBurst's technologies are changing so perhaps the advantages of UV filtered device will fade away. Here's to that! I'm sure we all have too many spectros.
There are lots and lots of devices and papers out there. There are different RIPS, spectros and profiling applications. Your results *will* vary. Take these recommendations for what they are worth and do your own testing. Let's not get caught up in a "to UV or not UV" war. I totally respect everyone here and their findings. I think we should pick up this topic again when ColorBurst 4.2 hits the streets with it's new LAB linearization.
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