Re: Epson canned profiles
Re: Epson canned profiles
- Subject: Re: Epson canned profiles
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:45:45 -0600
> On Apr 17, 2018, at 11:22 AM, ben <email@hidden
> <mailto:email@hidden>> wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2018, at 9:38 AM, Andrew Rodney <email@hidden
> <mailto:email@hidden>> wrote:
>
>> It's invisible to the Standard Observer.
>
> Andrew, why do you do this to yourself?
It's called peer review. Someone has to point out your fallacies about color,
encoding, and problems that don't exist with Epson's drivers with respect to
profiles (custom or otherwise). Why do you do this to yourself?
> Fire up your favorite image editor.
>
> Fill half the screen with L*a*b* 6, 1, 4. Fill the other half with 7, 1, 4.
> Overlay a couple patches of 6, 0, 0 and 7, 0, 0.
I don't have to, BableColor CT&A does this and so very well. So much better
than what you suggest. Buy the product!
See for yourself:
http://digitaldog.net/files/dE1.jpg <http://digitaldog.net/files/dE1.jpg>
Further, the dE differences you suggest are NOT a dE of 0.85 but of 1.0,
correctly reported by CT&A. Takes real chutzpah to knowingly supply bad data
for discussion purposes!
> By your very own math, the two background halves differ by 0.85 dE and are as
> close as your monitor is going to get to what you claim you're getting out of
> your printer. The two overlays will be as close to the neutral axis as your
> monitor will get; they'll also be less than 0.85 dE from the two halves.
Again, you're postings are confused and wrong. The values you provided ARE NOT
a dE of 0.85. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this,
or if you are really struggling with it.
> Anybody here can do this and instantly confirm that the differences are _not_
> invisible, that the one half is visibly darker than the other, that the
> overlays are quite noticeably cooler than the background halves, etc., etc.,
> etc. (Unless, of course, your display profile is abysmal.)
Some of us can do this correctly. You've illustrated you have not!
> So how on Earth can somebody simultaneously take pride in calling himself a
> color professional _and_ be so proud of being colorblind?
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument
> The Canon iPF line has sent 16-bit data via the Photoshop plugin for at least
> a decade or so.
So you'll provide some colorimetric data that proves there's a difference in
say, 918 color patches printing using that mode versus 24-bits? I think not.
> The same time they retired the plugin, they updated the driver to natively
> send 16-bit data. As you're so fond of noting, I'm not an Epson user, so I'd
> have to look up when or if they support higher color resolution.
So you'll provide some colorimetric data that proves there's a difference in
say, 918 color patches printing using that mode versus 24-bits? Or just
continue to post assumptions?
> Erm...Andrew...gamut and encoding resolution are entirely different,
> completely unrelated.
Who stated otherwise? Seems you didn't read the URL I provided that explicitly
states that fact.
> ProPhoto mathematically encodes colors that simply don't exist, tristimulus
> values that the nervous system doesn't create.
Who stated otherwise?
> You're confusing resolution with volume?
No, you are confusing color numbers with colors and suggesting that there could
be a 7-bit encoding of color. Maybe someone less mathematically challenged than
both of us can explain how we'd use that encoding on a computer.
_______________________________________________
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