Re: Epson canned profiles
Re: Epson canned profiles
- Subject: Re: Epson canned profiles
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:30:28 -0600
On Apr 16, 2018, at 2:29 PM, ben <email@hidden
<mailto:email@hidden>> wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Andrew Rodney <email@hidden
> <mailto:email@hidden>> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 12:03 PM, ben <email@hidden
>> <mailto:email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden
>> <mailto:email@hidden>>> wrote:
>>
>>> What, exactly, in D50 L*a*b*, is the darkest color the printer generates
>>> with the most economical setting? And what does it generate with the
>>> highest quality setting?
>>
>> According to BableColor CT&A it's dE 2000 of 0.85 and here are the two
>> measurement values from patch 03 (451), RGB 0/0/0.
>> Lab values extracted from BabelColor PatchTool 6.0 (yup, new version; neat!):
>>
>> 7.2000 1.1600 4.5100
>>
>> 6.2000 1.1800 4.1600
>
> FINALLY! Thank you!
>
> (Was that _really_ so difficult?)
You mean you actually understand it? And accept this and far more data
completely dismisses your made up Epson printer problems?
> So first...those are quite impressive numbers. Kudos to Epson.
If only you understood the 917/4999 other measured values that provide far more
data for the dE report provided, the kudo's that dismiss your assumption of a
Epson problem!
> It seems like they're saving some ink, but not much, in the economy mode. I'd
> be curious to compare total volumetric ink usage (and thus cost-per-print)
> between the two -- but that's a topic for a different discussion.
It only seems that why when you continue to assume! I didn't state which was
which, nor but anyone but an assume poster believe the differences are solely
due to 'ink savings'.
> From L* 7.2 to 6.2 is enough of a difference that it'll matter in a critical
> setting, but not enough to matter for the overwhelming majority of "good
> enough" prints --
Rubbish. Do you actually know what a 0.85 dE of one color patch looks like?
> which was exactly what I was describing as the most plausible explanation I
> could come up with consistent with your claims.
More assumptions. Without a lick of data on your part.
> I think, were I tasked with crafting a single profile for both, I'd throw
> everything at the high quality mode, on the assumption that those for whom it
> most matters would appreciate that most, and those for whom "good enough" is
> good enough won't notice the difference between an average of the two and one
> targeted to the spare-no-expenses mode.
You make up since ideas with one patch of data, from 'wet' papers, without
knowing what mode produce what set of data; hilarious.
> The end user would perceive it as maximal shadow clarity and density in
> expensive mode and a very little comparative muddiness in ink-saving mode.
Only if you believe the end user can detect a dE of less than 1 and the output
had a lot of said RGB 0/0/0 values in it! That would make perfect sense if you
suspend all rational thought. So I suppose it makes sense to you <g>.
> With a profile made from an average of the values, the two modes will look
> very much like each other, but you're leaving some quality on the table for
> the expensive mode.
That would make perfect sense if you suspend all rational thought.
> The next point that comes to mind is that it's not all that far off the
> neutral axis -- measurably warm, but not so warm that many would notice.
Why don't you tell us with the values provided, the deltaH of the two lab
values provided; that should be good for a laugh if you understand what and
how.
> But that _does_ offer the hope that the darkest the printer can get and stay
> on the neutral axis is still awfully dark.
Sure, whatever new fiction you hope to provide without again, any measurement
data from your end.
> Which would make a lot of the hype justifiable.
None of your hype has been thus far.
> A lot depends on the shape of the bottom of the gamut, but just getting those
> two trivial numbers out of you was so much trouble I wouldn't even dream of
> asking for anything more complicated....
Please don't under-go anything more complicated than the data I've provided
that dismiss your FUD about problems with a line of printers you have
absolutely no experience using (by your own admission). So again, your agenda
for posting here is different than my report earlier?
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
_______________________________________________
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