Re: A metameric match between display and print?
Re: A metameric match between display and print?
- Subject: Re: A metameric match between display and print?
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>Marco,
>
>Do you expect a CMY(K) display that has the same screen build up of
>offset prints, a range of dot sizes, more or less subtractive color
>mxing as a result?
I don't expect any such thing, Ernst. That would be clear from reading my posts more carefully.
I still have to read a description of this technology on this forum that makes any sense according to what I know about both monitor displays and the printing process on presses. I was not the one to mention that these CMY filters would be modeled after CMY inks. I'm asking the logical questions that follow from that. Wouldn't you?
>If so forget that idea and at the same time the
>necessity of matching CMY hues.
I am not advocating any "necessity" of matching CMY inks on these displays. Actually, if you did indeed read what I wrote, I questioned that very same thing.
Though I don't want to jump to possibly incorrect or hasty conclusions, I am questioning the very usefulness and need for this type of displays. I'm not saying they are useless, because I don't know enough to say so, but I'd like to be told clearly and precisely why and in which ways they represent a technological advance.
That's why I asked that someone, anyone, tell us all on the forum exactly how these CMY displays would surpass the quality of the best displays currently available on the market, accurately calibrated and profiled.
>The systems used will be more like the
>old roto gravure with continuous CMY density changes within the cell.
>Closer to collotype and chromogene photography than offset.
You know this for a FACT, or are you making a guess? I'd rather have facts. I can make guesses too, but they wouldn't necessarily be reliable, nor would I present them as such.
>I'm saying that with CMY subtractive filtering emissive displays,
>reflective displays and mixed forms are possible.
>If you consider an LCD panel with a backlight of fluorescent tubes or
>LEDs as emissive then we have the same meaning of emissive in mind. I'm
>not suggesting that the light source itself is colored
I neither said nor implied that, so this seems to be beside the point.
>and I do not know a CMY display based on a principle like that.
But this is just speculative on your part, isn't it? Are you guessing, or do you speak from specific knowledge of the technology mentioned by the OP?
>I didn't write self-luminous.
No, I did. That was my contention: that calling these CMY displays "reflective" seems quite incorrect, because, as long as they are self-luminous, they would then necessarily have to be considered EMISSIVE.
And here are MORE questions:
If an effectively REFLECTIVE display (not self-luminous) can indeed be made (mind you, not an emissive one misleadingly branded as "reflective"), then how is that an improvement over the current self-luminous ones? A reflective display would need EXTERNAL lighting (ambient or from a lamp) in order to operate, so there would be a brand-new added problem of making sure that an ambient light of appropriate CCT (Correlated Color Temperature) is directed at the display.
Which leads one to wondering whether these displays would come with their own external daylight-like light source as part of the purchase. Or would it instead be the case that the user ends up adopting whatever light is in the room? How would that be seen as part of a more-accurate workflow?
Thanks for the links you include in your message. I'll read the URLs, as part of my continued attempt to grasp the nature and specifics of this innovation.
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