Re: Printer Calibration
Re: Printer Calibration
- Subject: Re: Printer Calibration
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:21:41 -0700
On Apr 7, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
> Mike,
>
>> Your comment on the time required is confusing: You say that 10 minutes
> with XF is too much time compared with 10 minutes with
>> GMG. I think all Germans regard a minute as the same length...
>
> I have to maintain 5 different output conditions on two printers. When I
> suggested 10 minutes for re-profile optimization on both printers, I meant 5
> x 10 minutes x 2 printers. That adds up to close to an hour each. But the
> newer generation of HPs or Epson probably don't need re-profile optimization
> that often. That's a point well taken.
These are not HP5500s--very stable. As I say, initiate your favorite recal procedure in down time or at shift's end. Another point I should have made (I can't think of everything) is that with the optimization procedure I tend to use similar output conditions really can use the same ".3cc" correction file. Because it is a LUT it just nudges values in a certain direction. Often many of the different output conditions vary mainly by paper color, so the drift has the same effect and the correction is nearly the same. Maybe you can use the same .cc file in two or three simulations--on the same printer, of course. I do this a lot, and it saves heaps of time.
>
>> I would counsel you, and Scott Martin, not to use words like "trickery" or
> "BS" so carelessly.
>
> Those are words I rarely use, if ever, on any forum, Mike.
Of course I'm aware of that.
>
>> If we must compare products let's do it with facts, not guesses, and
> always in view of realistic needs of the actual users of these
>> products.
>
> If I was forced to use XF, I'm sure I'd managed to get the job done, as I've
> done using the previous versions, since 2.5.
> Given the choice, if it was my money, I know what I would do.
That's why there are different products.
>
>> This entire discussion must be kept within the bounds of reality set by
> the original context: Epson 4900s using inline Spectroproofers,
>> whose interinstrument disagreement may be greater than 1dE76. In that
> context, as Todd Shirley correctly said, worrying about small
>> fractions of a dE between printers is inappropriate and the whole
> discussion is of dubious usefulness.
>
> My initial point was usability. But I'll stop belabouring the point. XF
> comes with a "philosophy" of operation of its own I'd probably need to
> relearn. I probably never learned this the right way to begin with.
>
>
It certainly has its own "style" and logic. I don't like everything about it, but it's a matter of tradeoffs, as always.
_______________________________________________
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