RE: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
RE: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- Subject: RE: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:28:07 -0400
Todd,
Just a quick reply this morning as I have to go. I use the tolerances
defined by IDEAlliance in spring for SWOP "proof to the numbers" monitor
certification. The whole thing is based on ISO-12646. 160 cd/m2 Luminance,
ISO-3664 P1 lighting condition (500 Lux), D50 white point, 20% surround. I
think it is well defined. Have you seen ISO-12646?
Regards / Roger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden
> [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden] On
> Behalf Of Todd Shirley
> Sent: 28 octobre 2008 23:23
> To: colorsync-users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: SWOP Proof Certification, TRxxx Characterization Data
>
> On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
>
> >>> This is why I believe press proofing
> >>> will make great strides in the coming months, years. At least with
> >>> press
> >>> proofing, there is *no* confusion as what the tolerance is.
> >
> > To which you replied:
> >
> >> Press proofing....ya think? Not sure clients want to pay for
> > that...perhaps for
> >> a digital press.
> >
> > Please consider that, with current monitors quality like the Eizo's
> > or the
> > HP or the NEC or the Quatto or the LaCIE or the Samsung (have I left
> > anyone
> > out?), the technical quality is there. Please consider also the
> > economics of
> > press proofing. This, in my opnion, is what's going to make this
> > happen.
> > Consider TimeLife, the largest US publishers. They recently complete
> > the
> > elimination of all hardcopy proofing from their operations.
> > Personnally, I
> > see it happening more and more every day. The way I see it, I don't
> > think
> > it's going to be driven by clients but by printers, who have much to
> > gain in
> > this process in view of declining margins and overall shrinking
> > sales volume
> > because of the gradual and unstoppable migration of advertising
> > dollar to
> > the internet -- what is making google richer is making the printing
> > industry
> > poorer. And there are logistics as well as time saving advantages.
> > And, like
> > I said, with monitors, there *can't* be issues of optical
> brighteners,
> > right?
> >
>
> Hi Roger
>
> So you are talking about soft proofing or virtual proofing, not press
> proofing. I understand press proofing to mean doing a short run on
> press as way of creating a proof. You are talking about viewing proofs
> on monitors. Time Life doesn't do press proofs, they do soft proofs.
> And while there can't be optical brighteners in monitors, there
> certainly are optical brighteners on most press stocks, so soft-
> proofing would do well to simulate them. And you say there is no
> confusion what the tolerance is... so what is the tolerance? While the
> ADS sheets on SWOP.org specify white point, brightness and gamma, I
> don't see anything that lists tolerances. All the ADS sheets say is
> this extremely vague statement: "The appearance of a hard copy or
> monitor proof used in this application must have the ability to
> closely match specific CGATS or other documented characterization data
> sets within outlined tolerances. See further explanations and
> recommendations outlined on www.swop.org or www.gracol.org"
>
> I agree that virtual proofing has made great strides and may one day
> replace hard proofing, but we have a similar problem in that
> tolerances are not clearly defined. In fact, it is even worse with
> virtual proofing, because viewing conditions aren't even mentioned,
> much less defined. At least with a hard copy proof it is understood
> that it is supposed to be viewed in a D50 light booth. What color
> light is supposed to be surrounding your virtual proofing monitor? How
> bright should it be? What color should the surround be? Even a
> perfectly calibrated and profiled monitor isn't going to look the same
> in a fluorescent lit press room and a dimly lit office.
>
> While I am being argumentative, don't take it to mean that I don't
> think the aimpoints for any kind of proofing aren't worth trying to
> hit. I check my proofs all the time and whenever I get a proof from
> someone else with a control strip or FOGRA wedge I read it in to see
> how they compare. I'm just pointing out the fundamental frustration
> that Klaus expressed to start this thread. You and I are enthusiastic
> about color analysis and digging around for tolerances, but it is hard
> to get industry-wide acceptance of control strips and proof
> certification when, well, there is NO SUCH THING as proof
> certification. There is no motivation to print control strips if there
> are no official tolerances that everyone can use to know if a proof
> passes or not. FOGRA has such a system. IDEAlliance does not.
>
> -Todd Shirley _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> users/email@hidden
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 3565 (20081029) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3565 (20081029) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.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