Re: Munki Business - Color Business
Re: Munki Business - Color Business
- Subject: Re: Munki Business - Color Business
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:46:50 -0700
On Dec 1, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Marco Ugolini wrote:
But for all I know, its a superior device.
Let us be clear: The *ColorMunki* is a better device than the EyeOne
Pro?
I told you, I can't answer that from a fully adequate technically
level. I'm sure someone who's built instruments could. Maybe Robin can
pipe in, he knows this stuff. What do you mean by "better"? Is there
newer, better measuring technology in the Munki compared to the
EyeOne? I think so from what I've heard. Is it faster, cheaper, better
built? Maybe yes in some cases, maybe no.
Look, it's a simple, factual question, and it should have a simple,
factual
answer. Personal opinions are beside the point here.
No, its not simple. And you have to define what you mean by better.
Spec's alone don't necessary cut it. And who's spec's? Ideally, an
independent person with the knowledge and equipment along with a
number of product samples to test.
Look, you can get totally useless spec's on digital projectors that
tell you product A has twice the ANSI lumens of product B and that's a
totally lame and useless spec unless all you care about is black text
on a white bkgnd. See: http://www.lumita.com/labs/whitepapers/ and
check out the proposal of a much better spec called Color Light
Output. Spec's alone are not all that useful, especially when dealing
with so many bogus specs (be it contrast ratio for displays or S/N
ratio's of chips). So a spec would tell you that its prefect?
If you want some really simply statement that the Munki is better, I'm
sure we can make up something that will make you feel better. But find
someone else with a high BS factor to post that.
So, it's an "advance" over previous devices. Though you're not
qualified to
say.
My understanding is yes, there are some advancements and I said I'm
not qualified to say so to this groups level. And the people who have
told me this are within X-Rite so there goes the independent review.
Based on the results I've seen with the device, I have no reason to
believe that, at least in terms of the profiles that it builds, it is
any way a step backwards. If the so called spec's you want, from X-
Rite or from an independent source say its not as "good", fine. But I
don't see this on the prints I made from the many sets of profiles I
built with the two instruments under discussion (or for that matter,
from a iSis I used as a device to compare the profiles as well).
That was not my intended meaning of "perfect", which may have been
unclear
earlier, but ought to be clear now.
Its no clearer. Perfect: (adj) being entirely without flaw and meeting
supreme standards of excellence. free from damage, defect, or flaw.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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