Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- From: "edmund ronald" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 03:22:27 +0200
Mark,
It's an open secret in the industry that camera profiling doesn't
work well. There is some technology out there to solve the problem,
namely computing the camera response on the fly from good data about
the sensor and the scene lighting. Adobe was approached with a request
to allow this to interoperate with their product, they slammed the
door. They have absolutely no interest in delivering better quality to
their users - the present state suits them quite well. And in fact,
the ACR model does at least as well as anything else out there, if you
want a simple model.
Edmund
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Mark Segal <email@hidden> wrote:
> Edmund,
>
> Your note may well explain why Adobe are doing as they are doing; however, I
> wasn't suggesting anyone should tell Adobe what's better than their current
> solution - only that they should translate and evaluate Uli's complete set
> of material and publish an article explaining their findings and their
> p.o.v. about it. Sure the horse has bolted insofar as they are doing what
> they are doing, but companies do redirect their horses when they see good
> reason or some commercial advantage to do so; if a hard-working member of
> the imaging community has come up with something worth investigating, well,
> maybe they should check it out. And it could settle what is by now not a new
> debate.
>
> Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: edmund ronald
> To: Mark Segal
> Cc: Andrew Rodney ; Terence Wyse ; 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 6:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
> I think the horse has bolted. At the outset, Adobe had the choice
> between an (initially) proprietary extension of the ICC methodology or
> using an entirely new Raw model of their own. Each of these had
> technical advantages, I guess. They chose an entirely new description,
> probably because the original DNG 2-matrix model is elegant, easy to
> code and understand. Now they've chosen to extend it rather than move
> sideways into the ICC world.
>
> So there's no point in telling Adobe that ICC-conformant models are
> intrinsically better - they aren't. It's just that they allow a large
> pool of third-party contributors, who cater to the whims of market
> niches.
>
> Standardisation has nice sides; but technical excellence has nothing
> to do with standards conformance.
> Expect DNG to get more baroque year by year :)
>
> Edmund
>
_______________________________________________
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