Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
- Subject: Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
- From: Tom Lianza <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 08:26:38 -0400
- Thread-topic: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
Hi Mike,
The whole UV issue is like a wound that won't stop itching. The inclusion
of optical brighteners in papers has led to a demand for "specified" amounts
of UV in the measurement path. There are now four ISO measurement modes:
M0 - traditional tungsten illumination
M1 - illumination simulating D50 and/or matching the UV content of D50
relative to the visible portion
M2 - UV cut: minimal or no uv in the illumination sample
M3 - Crossed polarized and UV cut in the illumination beam.
The goal of the M1 specification is to provide the illumination that
simulates the standard viewing conditions. It is not easy to control the
specific amount of UV without careful tuning and frankly M1, in my opinion
will add to confusion and cause greater instrument to instrument
disagreement. Given the fact that most viewing booths do not meet the UV
characteristics of D50, the M1 condition will lead to greater disagreement
between visual and instrument assessment.
Isis is much older than the new specification, and hence, its design was
aimed at helping solve the problem in a different way. If you look at the
OBA module we provide, there are visible standards that are used to
correlate the iSis measurements with a specific media in a specific booth.
The goal here is to fold the effect of UV AS VISUALLY INTERPRETED, back into
the profile.
I am in the process of writing a White Paper on this subject for the ICC. I
hope you see that this is not " dictated by devious instrument design
logic", but rather, a case of the instrument design preceding the ISO
specification AND a desire to actually solve the problem in real life.
Take care
Tom Lianza
Co Chair ICC
Director Advanced Development R&D X-rite
On 4/10/11 4:38 AM, "Mike Strickler" <email@hidden> wrote:
> 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
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email or any attachments.
_______________________________________________
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