Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 292 (Out of the office 7/31 - 8/3)
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 292 (Out of the office 7/31 - 8/3)
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 292 (Out of the office 7/31 - 8/3)
- From: "Jeffrey Reed" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:03:08 -0400
I will respond to your message when I return to the office Monday,
August 6.
Jeffrey Reed
NWTS Static Imaging Lab
301.837.0950
>>> colorsync-users 07/31/07 15:02 >>>
Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Ambient light adjustment of monitor calibration (Koch Karl)
2. Re: UV Filter - DTP70 (RaymondCheydleur)
3. Re: DTP70 - 2 step or not 2 step? (Scott Martin)
4. Proofline Papers (Matthew Kelly)
5. Re: UV Filter - DTP70 (Jan-Peter Homann)
6. Re: UV Filter - DTP70 (Steve Upton)
7. Re: DTP70 - 2 step or not 2 step? (Steve Upton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:29:13 +0200
From: Koch Karl <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Ambient light adjustment of monitor calibration
To: ColorSync Mailing List Users <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Hi Roger,
it*s actually 2 relevant standards that need to be taken into
consideration: ISO 3664 and ISO 12642.
If you interpret both, you end up with the following suggestions:
Ambient light below 64 lux, best below 32 lux
Monitor luminance ABSOLUTELY above 80 cd/sqm, better above 120 cd/sqm
Viewing light 500 lux * 125 lux
If you now want your monitor to match the viewing booth, it should be
set to 160 * 40 cd/sqm (= 120 to 200 cd/sqm). basICColor display
takes this into account when calibrating the monitor and JUST color
communicator2 (basICColor diLIGHT). The brightness of the viewing
booth is being adpted to the calibrated luminance of the monitor. A
traffic light will show if you meet or exceed any of the 2 standards,
also for any other viewing booth that cannot be automatically
calibrated but which can be manually dimmed.
The conclusion is that there is not much variance allowed in the
ambient light and thus no necessity to "dynamically" calibrate to
varying conditions. To do so would mean shooting at moving targets.
All the "solutions" I have seen so far, check ambient light in
shorter or longer intervals. If ambient light changes during these
intervals, you have a sudden change of monitor characteristics when
your correction kicks in. Do I need say more?
Regards,
Karl
Am 28.07.2007 um 22:35 schrieb Roger Breton:
> Dear Markus,
>
>> what is the general opinion here about ambient light correction that
>> some monitor calibration systems are offering?
>
> I admit I have not seen one of these "smart" monitors in action. So
> it's
> unknown to me the degree of adjustment they can modify the monitor
> luminance
> with respect to ambient lighting. But it does not seem to me like a
> useful
> feature. To me, monitor calibration should be done for a certain
> viewing
> conditions and remain fixed from that point on. Usually, people are
> after a
> viewing booth setup that matches their monitor in luminance. Once
> they found
> it, I don't see why they would want a smart circuitry inside the
> monitor to
> alter the screen luminance to reflect ambiant lighing changes.
>
>> Sure it ensures, that
>> one is always able to distinguish between (0 0 0) and (1 1 1) but
>> then I am not able to distinguish between (0 0 0) and (1 1 1), as
>> defined in the output space, on a lot of printed material,
>> particularly on photographic material without illuminating it from
>> the back.
>
> See above.
>
>> Are there any norms for this ambient light correction
>
> The only "norm" I know with respect to ambient lighting in the
> graphic arts
> or photography is ISO-3664.
>
>> or is it
>> different from software to software?
>
> Maybe the folks at basICcolor have a different idea?
>
>> Best,
>>
>> Markus
>
> Roger Breton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> 40mac.com
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:02:49 -0400
From: RaymondCheydleur <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: UV Filter - DTP70
To: ColorSync Users Mailing List <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <C2D4AB39.26771%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
IMHO you are both right! It's very tough to satisfy all users when you
are
dealing with a technical product. Scientific users demand wording
according
to the specifications (UV included/excluded) "Regular" users want a
simple
explanation... (UV Filter, no filter).
However when you are in a mixed environment of users the simple
explanation
gets complex! A few years ago at an IPA event the form submitted for
measurement had check boxes: ___UV ___No UV Very friendly,
unfortunately also very confusing. Measurements with UV or no UV or is
that
with a UV filter, or without a UV filter...
Later versions of the DTP70 manual available on the web specifically
include
both the technical terms and parenthetically (UV filter not in use) and
(UV filter in use)
If you don't know what included and excluded mean the web can help there
as
well. There has been a help desk article posted on the X-rite web site
for 3
years that should help any user (and lets not start a debate on the last
paragraph :-))
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=674&Action=Support&SupportID=3
152
-------
UV Included and excluded
The X-Rite DTP70 contains an Ultra Violet (UV) filter that can be moved
into
the optical path of the instrument. When this is done the filter blocks
(excludes) UV energy from the measurement.
UV excluded therefore means the filter is being used.
UV included means that the filter is not being used.
It is often desirable to exclude the UV potion of the spectrum when
measuring profiling targets printed on substrates containing optical
brighteners. The DTP70 is shipped from X-Rite with the filter in the
included position. See related support articles on the left to learn how
to
move the filter into or out of the optical path.
--------
Thank you,
RayC
Ray Cheydleur
OEM Technical Manager
X-rite Incorporated
<snip>
>
> In a message dated 7/30/07 10:23 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I think it's you lot that are being perverse in
>> wanting to name it after the mechanism used, thereby leaving
>> yourselves a mental inversion step every time you want to
>> understand what effect there is on the reading.
>
> Marco Ugolini:
> In my own opinion, Graeme, there is a user side and a technology /
> manufacturer's side to the tools we use in our work. My natural
inclination
> is to side with the user, because I'm one too.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:44:47 -0500
From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: DTP70 - 2 step or not 2 step?
To: ColorSync Users Mailing List <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Marco Ugolini wrote:
>> BTW, I hate to call it linearization since it doesn't directly
>> linearize the printer prior to profiling. I like "device customized
>> profile target generation" but I'm open to other, shorter ideas...
>
> Isn't the process properly called "pre-linearization"?
Well, technically it is performed post-linearization and before
profiling. Putting "linear" in the name should be avoided because it
shouldn't be confused with any linearization process that may, or may
not be taking place. When I train new users on this process their
reaction is always something like: "Why are we linearizing again? I
thought this other thing was the linearization. If this is for just
making a better profile why don't they call it something other than
linearization?"
While I like to think of MP's 1st step as characterizing the non-
linear state of a device for the sake of generating a device
customized target that will generate a superior profile, I think
XRite could just call it step 1 of their 2 step profiling process for
the sake of simplicity. Perhaps they could go into further detail
about "device customized target generation" and what's going on under
the hood in the manual.
MP's documentation is currently so poor that people are actually more
confused about it after having read about it. How many times have you
read and re-read that paragraph about linearization on page 118 of
the MP manual? A better written paragraph could have advanced our
community years ago. IMO, the point of 2 step profiling is to make a
superior profile, not for the sake of being able to re-linearize a
device later. If one can take the time to re-linearize a device than
one can surely re-profile it as well.
Anyway, the concept of a 2 step profiling process is important to
understand. Generic targets assume a device is perfectly linear. If
it is not, a generic target will produce less than optimal results
and a target that is customized for the device's nonlinear behavior
will produce better results. While I've been carrying this torch for
a while, I'd like to see more education and public awareness about
this concept.
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:13:09 -0500
From: Matthew Kelly <email@hidden>
Subject: Proofline Papers
To: ColorSync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
From previous posts on this list, I see that Proofline Papers have
received some praise. Would anyone be able to recommend which type
of Proofline they would use for commercial offset contract proofing,
using an Epson 9600?
Matthew Kelly
Prepress Supervisor
Litho Press, Inc.
4334 Milling Road
San Antonio, TX 78219
210-333-1711
email@hidden
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:38:25 +0200
From: Jan-Peter Homann <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: UV Filter - DTP70
To: RaymondCheydleur <email@hidden>, colorsync-users
<email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hello Ray,
Just to clear one think:
It makes a big difference, if the UV Filter is applied between
lightsource and measurement sample or between measurement sample an
measurement device.
In the first case, all UV light is blocked and optical brighteners in
the measurement sample are not activated.
In the second case, the optical brighteners in the measurement sample
shift some UV light to the visible spectrum. The shifted UV-light will
not be cut by the UV-Filter.
Most of the UV Filters I know, are in the path between lightsource and
measurement sample.
With i1 Isis, we have the change from tungsten light to LED light.
One interesting question will be, if the i1 Isis LED including UV have
more UV in the lightsource as tungsten lights.
In this case, the measurement of samples with a lot of optical
brighteners could lead to different results between Tungsten and LED
based instruments.
****
Questions:
Is there any information from X-Rite / GretagMacbeth available about the
spectrum of the lightsource in different instruments ?
Is there any information from X-Rite / GretagMacbeth available, if
different lightsources and No UV Filter will lead to different
measurement results for samples with strong optical brighteners ?
*****
Thank you for all your support at the colorsync mailinglist
Jan-Peter
RaymondCheydleur wrote:
> IMHO you are both right! It's very tough to satisfy all users when you
are
> dealing with a technical product. Scientific users demand wording
according
> to the specifications (UV included/excluded) "Regular" users want a
simple
> explanation... (UV Filter, no filter).
>
> However when you are in a mixed environment of users the simple
explanation
> gets complex! A few years ago at an IPA event the form submitted for
> measurement had check boxes: ___UV ___No UV Very friendly,
> unfortunately also very confusing. Measurements with UV or no UV or
is that
> with a UV filter, or without a UV filter...
>
> Later versions of the DTP70 manual available on the web specifically
include
> both the technical terms and parenthetically (UV filter not in use)
and
> (UV filter in use)
>
> If you don't know what included and excluded mean the web can help
there as
> well. There has been a help desk article posted on the X-rite web site
for 3
> years that should help any user (and lets not start a debate on the
last
> paragraph :-))
>
>
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=674&Action=Support&SupportID=3
> 152
> -------
> UV Included and excluded
>
> The X-Rite DTP70 contains an Ultra Violet (UV) filter that can be
moved into
> the optical path of the instrument. When this is done the filter
blocks
> (excludes) UV energy from the measurement.
>
> UV excluded therefore means the filter is being used.
>
> UV included means that the filter is not being used.
>
> It is often desirable to exclude the UV potion of the spectrum when
> measuring profiling targets printed on substrates containing optical
> brighteners. The DTP70 is shipped from X-Rite with the filter in the
> included position. See related support articles on the left to learn
how to
> move the filter into or out of the optical path.
> --------
> Thank you,
>
> RayC
>
> Ray Cheydleur
> OEM Technical Manager
> X-rite Incorporated
>
> <snip>
>> In a message dated 7/30/07 10:23 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but I think it's you lot that are being perverse in
>>> wanting to name it after the mechanism used, thereby leaving
>>> yourselves a mental inversion step every time you want to
>>> understand what effect there is on the reading.
>> Marco Ugolini:
>
>> In my own opinion, Graeme, there is a user side and a technology /
>> manufacturer's side to the tools we use in our work. My natural
inclination
>> is to side with the user, because I'm one too.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
*********** Neue Adresse / new adress ************
homann colormanagement ------ fon/fax +49 30 611 075 18
Jan-Peter Homann ------------- mobile +49 171 54 70 358
Christinenstr. 21 ------ http://www.colormanagement.de
10119 Berlin -------- mailto:email@hidden
*********** Neue Adresse / new adress ************
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:25:49 -0700
From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: UV Filter - DTP70
To: ColorSync <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <p06240803c2d52c78479c@[216.254.28.122]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Marco Ugolini wrote:
>>Of course! "UV excluded" means that the UV Filter is *included*, and
"UV
>>included" means that the UV filter is *excluded*!
It is for this reason that we standardized here on the abbreviation UVF
years ago.
For us UVF means UV filtered.
We started with just UV which caused instant confusion as we couldn't
remember whether that meant UV was the filter, so it wasn't in the
measurement, OR it was in the light...
Now with the slightly opposite behavior of the iSis we may need to
change to UVI for the readings where the UV is included.
One thing I'm sure is that X-Rite's terminology for the measurements is
confusing for me
UVCut vs UVCut + No
Odd, although it does reflect the behavior of the device.
On the other hand X-Rite has a hit with the iSis. I really like it. Much
less finicky with pages than the ICColor or the DTP-70 and I also like
the ability to get both measurement sets in one session. It does do a
bit more scanning when you want the UVI readings (see, I'm using it
already!) but it is so much faster than most solutions (other than the
'70) that it's not an issue for us.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
________________________________________________________________________
--
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:32:59 -0700
From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: DTP70 - 2 step or not 2 step?
To: ColorSync Users Mailing List <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <p06240804c2d52ff31854@[216.254.28.122]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 3:15 PM -0700 7/30/07, Marco Ugolini wrote:
>In a message dated 7/30/07 2:37 PM, Scott Martin wrote:
>
>> BTW, I hate to call it linearization since it doesn't directly
>> linearize the printer prior to profiling. I like "device customized
>> profile target generation" but I'm open to other, shorter ideas...
>
>Isn't the process properly called "pre-linearization"?
actually I prefer to call it adaptive targeting. That term captures any
of a number of things you can do to create better targets for a
particular device or process. We've been using adaptive targeting for
years where we add to the target in particular parts of the color space
to enhance the profiling software's ability to capture it's behavior.
Bill Atkinson's 918 RGB target is a good example of a target that was
adapted (through Bill's painstaking experiments) with many additional
columns of near-neutral colors.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
________________________________________________________________________
--
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Colorsync-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 292
***********************************************
_______________________________________________
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