Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler?
Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler?
- Subject: Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler?
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 01:38:20 -0700
Random observations about all this, as if anyone cares:
1. No one "needs" to upgrade, if that's the right word. There is no plan to confiscate your PM5 or Monaco. They're both working for now, at least on 10.6, and later on you can keep a copy on an old Mac or PC. What a crisis.
2. Colorport works, but what a dreadful user experience! Like Brookhurst Avenue in Anaheim, CA, an incoherent jumble of signs and ugly typography. Like Windows, come to think of it. The same with Monaco, actually. Nice profiles, but an interface only an engineer can love. (I hope you're not reading this, George.) The best thing about the new software is that it grabbed some of Monaco's best features, like the flexible black generation curve, and rolled it up with the Profilemaker/EyeOne usability and lovely interface. Then, for some reason, they stopped short and left us with Colorport for measuring? Doesn't fit the philosophy or aesthetics. Maybe they ran out of time.
3. On Monaco's supposed supremacy over PM5 (from Marc): For some things, maybe, but I could never demonstrate that it made a better printer profile, not visually, not by the numbers. I know the features and why they should be better, including Intelligent Black. It was so cool! Problem is, I was always able to duplicate these effects in PM5 very closely (and those of some very brainy ink-savings programs as well). Maybe I'm just not smart enough to appreciate the advantages, don't have the palate, you might say. X-Rite apparently thought both programs needed improvement, thus Prism.
4. Marc, we've already been told that iterative L*a*b* profile optimization doesn't work, and we must accept it, regardless the evidence. Please get with the program, so to speak. I will be refusing all prompts to optimize.
5. A major crime remains unredressed with this release, or has it? The wondrous iSis, jewel in the i1 crown, runs at half-speed for those who insist on including ultra violet in their measurements as it doggedly adds a second pass in UV-cut mode (technically no-UV-included, as there's no UV to cut). Can someone finally tell us why UV-filtering freaks get the only fast mode? Why is this the default in this day and age? Is this dictated by devious instrument design logic? Is a UV-excluded pass perversely needed to simulate the UV? Anyone? Marc? Ray Cheydleur?
6. No one has griped about the lack of a scanner profiling module. A no-brainer, this one: Scanner operators are real men, and they don't whine. They also tend not to believe in color management, and now they've been paid back by being officially obsoleted. (Note to Epson/Silverfast owners: Do not reply; you do not own a scanner.)
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