Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
- Subject: Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros
- From: Rick Gordon <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:13:24 -0700
After having recently queried X-Rite concerning this, and having initially been told that all intents were supported, I recently received the following form X-Rite technical support (which concurred with my own testing and other reports that I had heard):
At 1:03 PM -0400 4/23/07, CMSupport wrote:
>Our internal testing confirmed your findings. X-Rite's official statement is as follows:
>
>"Optical Brightener Compensation in PM5 and i1Match is applied to the perceptual rendering intent only."
>
>Again, thanks for your patience with this...
Rick Gordon
------------------
On 5/29/07 at 1:40 PM -0400, Todd Shirley wrote in a message entitled
"Re: UV filtered vs. non UV filtered spectros":
>I personally use Monaco Profiler to make profiles, which does not "compensate" for optical brighteners like ProfileMaker does, but I don't really understand what "software correction" means. Can anybody fill me in on what exactly Profiiemaker is doing that Monaco Profiler isn't? Beyond this confusion, I have read on multiple forums, including this one, that the compensation that ProfileMaker does only applies to the perceptual rendering intent, which I rarely if ever use, especially at the RIP. Does anyone know if this is true?
--
___________________________________________________
RICK GORDON
EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING
___________________________________________________
WWW: http://www.shelterpub.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