Re: Comparing color performance on Displays
Re: Comparing color performance on Displays
- Subject: Re: Comparing color performance on Displays
- From: Dan Wilson <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:50:37 +0100
Hey Terry,
You did not say it first and I am not picking on you :-)
I think we are referring, more correctly, to the "Ugra/Fogra MediaWedge"
Best regards,
Dan Wilson
G7 Process Control & Conformance Expert
Ugra Expert/Consultant
FTA - Flexo Colour Implementation Specialist Level II
Chair Irish TC130 Committee (12647 Print Standards)
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:31:00 -0400
> From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>
> To: ColorSync User List List <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Comparing color performance on Displays
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Kamil Tresnak wrote:
>
>> i wrote "good middle class" :) OK, OK, "well done, good job" was definitely more appropriate, i was just little bit disputing "best on the planet".
>
> Yes, perhaps a statement that's a bit bold. I would've clarified "for an ICC-based solution, these are very good numbers". One key thing that was missing (in my opinion) is the dE metric used. If it was dE76, good numbers indeed....but if it was dE2000, good but not exactly "great" numbers.
>
>
>> IMO, technically speaking, depends on what we measure. If you measure little bar (Fogra), it is no matter if you get average 1,1 or 0.90, particulary with regard to instrument precision. But if you measure big target (ECI), improving in both values, average and max, is a bit more important.
>
> I generally find the (Fogra/IDEAlliance) control strips to result in higher dE values (they test the more difficult patches) while the ECI20002-IT8.7/4 charts to be perhaps a bit more forgiving (a larger percentage of "easier" patches).
>
> I think there's some clear advantages between some of proprietary solutions (GMG, et al) vs. RIPs based on "open" ICC technology....but the gap is perhaps narrowing as more ICC-based solutions offer some form of profile iteration or "optimization". In the case of iProfiler, I've yet to see it's profile optimization do much improvement that's not within the margin of instrument repeatability, assuming you're starting with 2,000+ patches to begin with. I guess folks can decide whether starting with few patches and then optimizing vs. starting with a lot of patches to begin with that don't require optimization is the better approach...to each his own set of patches. :-)
>
> Having said all THAT, I think what's becoming the more critical piece is the *calibration* (i.e. "linearization") routine employed by the various software RIPs. On a given day, many of these proofing RIPs can achieve a reasonable dE and visual match to a standard dataset....KEEEPING it that way becomes the challenge and this is where I find a clear distinction among some of the various RIPs.
>
> Regards,
> Terry
>
>
>
> ______________________________________
> Terence Wyse, WyseConsul
> Color Management Consulting
> G7 Certified Expert
> FIRST Level II Implementation Specialist
_______________________________________________
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