Re: BCP or no BCP to epson without rip and molehill central
Re: BCP or no BCP to epson without rip and molehill central
- Subject: Re: BCP or no BCP to epson without rip and molehill central
- From: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:09:54 -0400
Marco wrote:
<
So, what is the argument about, really, aside from the joy of nitpicking?
With apologies to the color scientists who may feel offended by reading
this, but sometimes this forum feels like Molehill Central, I swear...
>
Marco, I have got to tell you, as a color scientist and Chairman of the
ICC, the entire industry IS Molehill Central ( I am assuming here that
you are implying that we are constantly playing "Whack a mole"). The
problem with the whole ICC concept is that the fundamental
implementations are always way ahead of the science and the science is
always in transition as well.
Black Point compensation is an unfortunate response to a fundamental
flaw in the initial ICC specification: the lack of a defined black point
assumption. Many people took note of this early on, but the
organization had a rather restrictive view on input from the outside
world and we live with that legacy with a prolification of V2 profiles.
I would always recommend using BPC.
Version 4, in my opinion, was a very valid response to many of the
issues surrounding the Graphic Arts Industry concerns. Many complaints
have been rendered about the "complexity" of the process, but the fact
is the process of mapping colors from one media to another is by it's
very nature, complex. Version 4 is working quite well within the GA
industry, but it has some strong detractors in other areas such as
Digital Photography and Digital Motion Pictures. The fact is, if you
are making your own profiles for input and output, and writing your own
display and print applications, the system can work" flawlessly".
The introduction of "perceptual mapping" was a bit of a nightmare from
the standpoint of interoperability, but important to vendors of
printers. The expanded gamut of these printers (far exceeding sRGB in
certain instances) required a mechanism to provide a good looking image
on a wider gamut output. Perceptual Mapping is a major problem,
technically, because there is no standard way to define the mapping and
it is often irreversible. Perceptual Mapping is the equivalent of a
roll of photgraphic film: the color you see is the color it gives you.
From a consumer standpoint, this works well, the pictures look good.
As the current ICC specification winds it's way through ISO
certification, I suspect that we will see very few changes. For those
people who are successfully using the process this will be a blessing.
For those who continue to find fault with the system, the whining will
continue.
The next generation of the ICC technolgy will probably reflect the
increase in computing power and be far more adaptive than the current
specification. Many of the current issues that folks have with ICC
methodolgy are probably not suited to modest modifications to the
current specification, but I suspect we will see the ISO implementation
in place for many years to come. We've reached the point where full
spectral workflows are quite concievable, but our understanding of human
perception is still quite lacking, so handling spectral data doesn't
automatically mean better results. The situation hasn't changed...the
techology is way ahead of the color science.
If you have issues that you would like me to bring forward to the ICC
please contact me at my x-rite mail account.
tlianzaATxriteDOTcom. Please preface the subject with" ICCinfo" so it
gets directed to the correct folder.
Thanks,
Tom Lianza
_______________________________________________
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