Re: The DDC situation
Re: The DDC situation
- Subject: Re: The DDC situation
- From: MARK SEGAL <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Edmund,
I won't ask you whether or not you think I'm one of the "uninitiated", because quite frankly I could care less what you think about that and your pedestal only serves to dilute the technical value of what you could otherwise bring to this discussion.
Thanks for the information below but it doesn't begin to address the specific questions I put forward.
Mark
________________________________
From: edmund ronald <email@hidden>
To: MARK SEGAL <email@hidden>
Cc: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>; ColorSync Users Mailing List <email@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:24:28 AM
Subject: Re: The DDC situation
Let's provide some background here for the uninitiated. DDC is a
serial protocol that uses 2 pins, and provides a 5V power supply and
ground wires on pins inside the VGA and DVI connectors, to allow a
computer to probe and configure a monitor - possibly even when the
monitor is nominally in a power-off state. DDC was originally a way to
allow the computer to read an EPROM in the monitor describing it
screen resolutions, color primaries etc, but it has considerably
evolved since. It is in the purview of an organization called VESA.
Why is the latest set of problems a "specialised" DDC issue at all ?
If I understand rightly,
- Apple software was working with Apple hardware, allowing the user to
talk to screens.
- One day the nice geeks at Apple released an update that didn't let
programs write to the displays via the DDC channel properly, and
released new laptops that fail to talk correctly to existing hardware.
This is a pure non-regression issue, and there should be some manager
at Apple who institutes a set of pass/fail compatibility hardware
tests that are run before an update goes gold and kills users'
machines. No special knowledge of screens is needed to prevent this
situation, just a simple decision to suport "legacy" hardware and
software, eg all the hardware owned by the users, and the hardware
being made in 2009 or 2010. Of course, Apple does not owe Xrite or
Basiccolor or the NEC guys a living, and is not forced to make their
programs run or let their displays be compatible with Macs, but
disabling existing functionality is a bit tough on poor Joe User.
Now concerning the rest of this never-ending color-management mess.
After about 4 years of playing with various pieces of color
management, I am really discouraged by the fact that there is no
simple way the user can verify that his screen, software, monitor and
printer are playing together well. If there were a set of standard
tests, even trivial ones eg with some "reference" hardware, then I
guess this set of tests could be run by employees inside the bigger
corps, eg. Apple and Microsoft and Adobe and, therefore would
guarantee a minimum of sanity when new versions of software are let
loose on the world.
Edmund
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:10 AM, MARK SEGAL <email@hidden> wrote:
> And what mandate does the ICC have to work on the DDC problem? What
> expertise specialized in that niche do they have to manage such a
> process? What resources would they need to do it, and how would they obtain
> those resources, from who, and what authbority would they carry-over into
> implementation given the size and diversity of the target industry
> components? One advances by recommending options that have some prospect of
> operationa signifigance, hence my questions to test this proposal.
>
> Mark
>
> ________________________________
> From: edmund ronald <email@hidden>
> To: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
> Cc: ColorSync Users Mailing List <email@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:02:45 PM
> Subject: Re: The DDC situation
>
> The geeks are well represented at the ICC. Just about everyone there
> is more technical than me. And geeks have a tendency to like stuff
> that works. I think it's time said committee concentrated a bit more
> on making sure the user gets RELIABLE, REPEATABLE managed color,
> rather than expending engineering time on demonstrating the very
> questionable advantages of V4 vs V2 workflows.
>
> Edmund
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
> wrote:
>> In a message dated 12/22/08 12:04 PM, edmund ronald wrote:
>> Is it really up to the ICC to do that? What can they do if the companies
>> that produce hardware and software don't express any interest in full and
>> tested "interoperability" with their *competitors*?
>>
>> Why should these companies feel obligated to make any but the most token
>> efforts to "get along" when the whole point of being in the game is to
>> best
>> your opponent and get *their* share of the business?
>>
>> Mark Segal's suggestion is valid: it would make far better sense instead
>> to
>> move towards establishing a standards committee for this particular
>> process,
>> then. In all fairness, the industry can *not* be expected to do it of its
>> own initiative.
>>
>> Marco
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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