Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
- From: Chris Cox <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:50:24 -0700
- Thread-topic: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
3, 4, and 5 are incorrect.
You did not test (3), and thus 4 cannot be proven, and 5 does not follow
from 3 or 4 because you have not taken all the facts into consideration.
I'm sorry, but you are still making incorrect statements, and trying to push
your own biased view based on those statements.
I still cannot figure out if you are doing this intentionally to mislead or
create arguments, or whether you simply do not have the background to do
this testing.
Chris
On 9/7/08 2:17 PM, "email@hidden"
<email@hidden> wrote:
>
> So my reasoning is:
> 1. Everything else being equal, standard formats are better because
> they allow choice.
> 2. Adobe chooses a proprietary format and explains this with
> shortcomings of the ICC format (as quoted in this thread)
> 3. My measurements show the best results are achieved with ICC profiles.
> 4. from 3) follows: there are no shortcomings in ICC profiles relative
> to Adobe's format.
> 5. from 1) and 4) follows: Adobe's choice of a proprietary format was
> not the best solution
_______________________________________________
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