Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better?
Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better?
- Subject: Re: Can DeviceLink conversions be better?
- From: Klaus Karcher <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:06:26 +0200
Rolf Gierling wrote:
Hello Klaus,
Hi Rolf :-)
Am 06.09.2008 um 10:19 schrieb Klaus Karcher:
the blue one is the (admittedly small) gamut surface of a MacBook Pro
display.
You don't have any other monitor to judge color critical work?
Of course I have. It is just an example.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here.
If you are not interested in comparing "normal" profile conversions
to DeviceLink conversions, why do you comment.
I am /very/ interested in this comparisons. That's why I want to point
out the potentials, limitations and possible pitfalls of such tests.
If you are interested and you have a better test, please provide one
and I'm pleased to try it.
I am about to prepare one.
Finaly, I would like to quote Graeme (Gill) of ArgyllCMS again,
the system you are used to use (and I use it too, some times):
Marco Ugolini wrote:
but I would rather *see* the "much superior" results for myself
Graeme Gill replied:
Sure, happy to demonstrate. Have you got two profiles and an intent
you'd like to link ?
I have nearly finished a wrapper application to Graeme's ingenious DLP
command line tools. It works as a simple Droplet and aims to remove the
gateway hurdle for those unfamiliar with the command line and to improve
productivity.
It's a Mac application bundle that includes everything one needs to get
started. It facilitates batch processing as well as image- sequence- and
source-profile-specific gamut mapping and maintains a device link
profile cache.
I'll announce it in this list as soon as it is released.
Klaus
_______________________________________________
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