Re: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
Re: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- Subject: Re: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- From: Mike Eddington <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:07:47 -0400
I am taking on any bet that that no one
of the responsible parties tried to open them with any *non-English*
EXCEL version: MS EXCEL as well as Apple Numbers fail miserably to
interpret them in any locales where the comma is the decimal
separator.
This is not my experience. I haven't used any "non-english" Excel
version, but I can open the CSV file without issue, though on Excel
for Mac I had to enable "All Documents" rather than "All readable
Documents" in order to select the TR006_Char_Data.csv, but again, it
opened flawlessly...as it did with Apple Numbers '08 as well.
I remember that there once /were/ ordinary CGATS files -- I guess I
found them at <http://gracol.org/resources/>, but most of the links on
this page are dead now.
Try http://www.gracol.com/resources/datasetdownload.asp. There does
appear to be a dead link on the "resource center" page, but the link
on the home page works.
And for SWOP/SNAP/GRACoL proofs? Well, there are nice "streaming
WebeXes" (recorded web tutorials) where on can "learn why SWOP proofs
are G7 proofs" or "how to make a SWOP proof" and there is a link to
the
/free/ IDEAlliance Control Strip -- but if one simply wants to know
which patches have to meet which criteria, one gets wrapped up with
obfuscation, misinformation and a confusing number of
"ADS" (Application
Data Sheets) for all kinds of proofing systems. Why the heck should I
use different evaluations for different proofing systems when the
proofs
are made for the same printing condition?
I'd consider the targets and tolerances for the ISO 12647-7 colorbar
to be a work in progress (albeit well overdue). Idealliance's position
seems to be that the control strip can be used in any number of
applications/processes, and therefore the best method for determining
targets is via the B2A tables of a specific profile, and tolerances
defined between the proof producer and receiver. That's just not what
people expect when they download the colorbar and ponder what to do
with it, particularly with the inexplicable lack of the
ISO12647-7_ControlStripV5.txt file.
For the SWOP/Gracol Proofing System Certification, to be sure the
targets and tolerances for proof conformance are well defined, but to
hold end-users to the same metrics is asking for trouble. Inter-
instrument agreement is such as to render the ADS tolerances difficult
to near impossible from location to location. Its certainly a fine
target for an individual with a static instrument, but as users
exchange and measure proofs on different instruments, a proof that
measures within tolerance with one spectro can, and often will,
measure out of tolerance on another. Another issue is how well a
smaller number of patches (as the ISO 12647-2) represent conformance
as compared to the larger patch count IT874....i.e. does a pass toward
tolerances on one mean a pass on the other? With a smaller number of
patches in the ISO control bar, the answer would be "somtimes". ;)
I agree that the FOGRA media wedge is much clearer in regards to
targets and tolerances, but given the licensing restrictions (and
rather steep cost), no quite as flexible. Hopefully when the SWOP
proofing study results are released, there will be action to determine
more acceptable end-user proofing tolerances (or maybe they would be
so wide to accommodate instrument variation that the usefulness is
limited...mike crosses his fingers) . Until then, the SWOP ADSs do
offer some guidance on tolerances, but in the end, leaves it to the
user to define their own.
Michael Eddington
_______________________________________________
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