Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 71
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 71
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 71
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:44:10 -0700
To Kamil:
It's not a question of "slow down"; if you followed this thread, you'd have seen that the question put to me by Roger was precisely whether Ff uses density calibration. I've assume he knows what colorimetric calibration means--a term brought in here by Terry, not me. (And he's correct.)
I'm sorry you object the terms "practical" and" wizard." These are straightforward, generic terms. How else can I describe a difference to readers who don't know what we're talking about? I didn't even say that one product was better. THAT was introduced by others. I just suggest that people test for themselves and buy what they like. That will not be the same for everyone.
"Small targets": Yes, they do a very good job for retuning. I generally use a full IT8.7/4 for the initial optimization; the smaller charts later for retuning. I've checked the results on the full IT8.7/4, and indeed very good--overall, not just on those 46 patches. Please perform the test yourself and produce numbers before you make such statements.
"Real precision": If you want this, please don't speak of using the inline instrument in the 4900. It is a rough, good enough for most people. If it isn't they will use a large chart and a good external instrument.
Vendor speak: Yes, it's annoying.
To Graeme:
Relinearization could be considered a calibration, as the intent is to return the printer output to some earlier state before ink output changes, and it does change the end points, at least in XF (see actual product or ask me for a screen shot). Whether it works well enough is another story. As I've said repeatedly, it is useful in production environments more than in proofing. I find that it works best at correcting bigger swings in printer output than one usually encounters in a current proof printer like the -800 or -900-seres Epsons. If the initial optimized state was very good, the relin will tend to make things worse. How's that for a sales pitch?
To Kamil again:
You force me to say something positive about a feature (and thus sound to you like a salesman) when you make a completely unfounded and erroneous statement. Her's the correction: L*a*b* optimization works dramatically well. Before optimization we typically see av. dE76 of 1.5 to 2 overall (IT8.7/4) and afterward down to .6 or .7, depending on where one starts. Paper white, max dE, gray balance, all the usual metrics fall dramatically. If it didn't work I wouldn't use it—I am paid for results, my friend. None of this comes from any sales brochure--please find the quote or retract this silly statement.
On the Mimaki experiment: Frankly I'm not surprised it didn't help. I also find that two printers of the same model (different or same profile) do not benefit from interprinter optimization. In fact, as I said, I didn't even find it an improvement with different printers of similar capability. It can help in some scenarios where a target printer runs a different paper, for example, or has a noticeably reduced gamut; this would be similar to using a secondary simulation profile, but a little better as it does fine-tune the match. Is this worthwhile? Perhaps. Again, the feature exists, but it isn't in any brochure and in fact requires a minor workaround. Does this sound like someone is trying to sell you a dubious feature?
MS _______________________________________________
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