Re: GRACoL & SWOP Tolernaces
Re: GRACoL & SWOP Tolernaces
- Subject: Re: GRACoL & SWOP Tolernaces
- From: "dpascale" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:28:05 -0400
Roger,
Well, as long as the manufacturers do not give absolute accuracies for their
instruments, and just give inter-instrument accuracies, it is impossible to
be absolutely sure about the answer. ;-)
For display measurements, IDEAlliance has used Eye-One Pros which were
"certified" against a common standard, hand-picked if you want. Using a
run-of-the-mill Eye-One will somewhat increase the error. In the referred
app-notes, I suggest making an allowance for the manufacturer's
inter-instrument accuracy.
For printer certification, IDEAlliance uses similarly "certified" DTP-70.
Differences in accuracies between instruments have been documented on this
forum, particularly for emission type measurements, and are typically higher
than inter-instrument values.
For these reasons, as well as for legal reasons having to do with
IDEAlliance, it would be innapropriate to advertise that you have a
IDEAlliance certified proofing printer if you do it yourself, with or
without PatchTool. However, using your own instrument, and using the data
processing capabilities of PatchTool, you can easily go through the entire
process in a few minutes. You then know, within instrument accuracy margins,
if your equipment is well within the requirements, or far off. Keep in mind
that these specs were first written for manufacturers to certify their
proofing equipment (i.e. printers and monitors), and not for the users of
such equipment which will simply buy it with a certification logo. However,
it is not surprising that many users want to use these same spec to spot
check their equipment, certified or not, and see if it changes with time. As
well, I see these requirements as being more and more used for all aspects
of the printing chain.
If you have multiple instruments, nothing prevents you of making the same
measurements with each of them and compare them in PatchTool. You will have
statistical data on the difference (average error and sigma, plus other
stuff) and you will be able to see where the differences are more important
(in the yellows for example).
Finally, as it was mentioned a few posts ago by someone coming back from the
IPA meeting, the non-certification requirements may be looser than the
certification ones to take the variability of instruments into account.
Danny
dpascale@babelcolor,com
www.babelcolor.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Breton" <email@hidden>
To: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>; "Todd Shirley"
<email@hidden>; "ColorSync" <email@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: GRACoL & SWOP Tolernaces
Thank you so much for your reply, Danny.
To your knowledge, are the results obtained through PatchTool's
IDEAlliance
monitor certification procedure comparable from one instrument to the
other?
I know this is the 10 million dollar question but you opened the door ...
Roger Breton
For display, it works also with i1 Display and Spyder 2 and Spyder3, even
if
the display instrument recommended by IDEAlliance for monitor
certification
is the Eye-One Pro...
Danny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Breton" <email@hidden>
To: "Todd Shirley" <email@hidden>; "ColorSync"
<email@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: GRACoL & SWOP Tolernaces
Danny,
These are terrific suggestions!
I currently use PatchTool latest version to certify both my printer and
my
Eizo monitor and it is a relief to know that my workflow is fully
conforming.
You need an EyeOnePro though ...
Regards / 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:
This email sent to email@hidden