Re: The need for a substantial upgrade of ColorSync
Re: The need for a substantial upgrade of ColorSync
- Subject: Re: The need for a substantial upgrade of ColorSync
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:54:40 -0700
- Thread-topic: The need for a substantial upgrade of ColorSync
In a message dated 4/2/10 8:24 PM, Walker Blackwell wrote:
> If Apple flakes out and we imaging professionals can't rely on the platform
> anymore, we're going to go with Windows and PC hardware. They're cheaper and
> if they are more reliable as well, there's no glamour in the world that will
> keep us coming back to Apple. We can have the most stable processor and best
> journaling system in the world with OS X *if ZFS every gets done. But, we
> won't touch this stuff if our colors get screwed with.
In a message dated 4/2/10 8:41 PM, David Scharf wrote:
> Well its a relief, in a perverse sort of way, to see that its not just
> me having these problems. Everybody remembers when the clear choice for
> artists, designers, and photographers was Apple Mac. For those of us
> that have so much invested in the platform, we hope that Apple will
> again catch up and become the leader. The iPods, iPhones and all the new
> gizmos are really great, but Apple, don't forget core computing and the
> professionals that rely on you. That's really enough said. We hope you
> still care about us.
In a message dated 4/3/10 1:38 PM, Scott Martin wrote:
> The ColorSync Utility doesn't appear to have been improved at all since then
> and some things don't work as well as they used to. I would be great to see
> Apple refocus their efforts in this area for the sake of professionals (and by
> that I mean photographers, designers, illustrators, printmakers and the rest).
I think that we are drifting a bit from what I was trying to call attention
to.
The point I was trying to make in my OP is that seems appears to act as if
there is no need to upgrade ColorSync. Fact is that, from the point of view
of the Color Management community, there is a REAL need for SUBSTANTIAL
improvements. Our needs have evolved, and our demands have become more
specific.
In other words, to me it's not just a matter of malfunctioning software
upgrades, but of a lack of substantial progress in the overall CM technology
inscribed within ColorSync.
Many years have passed since we first started using ColorSync some time in
the second half of the 1990s. It all was very new and exciting then, but in
hindsight the building blocks of ColorSync have not really changed much
these since those days. We still have the same "dumb" CMMs (though possibly
more precise and reliable) and the same core architecture aimed at purely
colorimetric matching.
What I would like to see is:
1) A renewed commitment by Apple to updating ColorSync in a substantial,
non-cosmetic fashion, and to making it yet again the undisputed CM leader.
2) The introduction of "smart" CMMs that perform gamut matching and color
transforms -- not just number crunching of pre-baked transforms built within
custom ICC profiles in a generic fashion that doesn't take into account the
specific needs of individual images.
3) The introduction of appearance models (CIECAM or the like) as an integral
part of ColorSync.
All of this, if introduced, would likely spell the end of ICC profiles as we
know them today, replaced by new workflows and workflow elements built with
a new set of professional tools.
This will probably require that we as professional users start over in more
ways than one, but I believe that the gains would be worth the trouble of
the readjustments that we would need to make to the ways we work.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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