RE: Printer Calibration
RE: Printer Calibration
- Subject: RE: Printer Calibration
- From: Kamil Tresnak <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:26:28 +0200
Hi Mike,
OK, we got a little misunderstanding.
1) Baseline - I wrote something different (in a hurry) than I thought, I'm sorry. My objection was directed to the product eXpress. I understand that this is a much cheaper version, but I do not like that for adopting new papers you need make linearization in XF. As I say, I understand, but I do not like it.
2) Lab Correction: here we do not understand each other. As the debate is led by linearization, I mean Lab correction which take place during the linearization process in XF. As we know, there are two options, re-linearization (or a completely new linearization) or Lab correction. My opinion is that if something is wrong, Lab correction (in this case) has little effect. I have not spoken to optimize the profile.
I think we've explained it enough. Sorry that I opened the door to this debate. Let's continue to talk about really interesting and important matters.
Best regards,
Kamil
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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