August 2011 - colorsync-users

software suggestion
by Juris Valdmanis 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

Hello. I was using KeyWizard with Excel for quick print sheet quality check. I was measuring paper, full tones and half tones, overprints and comparing them with ISO targets. Now I have a new PC with Win7 64bit. And KeyWizard is not working on it. So probably it is time for something new! What software would you suggest if I need to measure several patches from print sheet color bar and compare them with targets. I use i1pro. thanks, Juris

3 3

Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza)
by Richard Wagner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On Aug 23, 2011,Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> wrote: Hi Tom, Thanks for the enlightenment. My pain as an early DreamColor adopter was apparently nothing compared with yours as a developer. With regard to the HP / X-Rite colorimeter compatibility issue, I do hope that X-Rite chooses not to go this route in the future. You guys make outstanding hardware and software (I've bought a lot of it), and most of the high-end user base wants more than one tool in the tool box to be able to identify and verify problems for themselves and others, or simply to confirm that all is well or that a given problem lies elsewhere (like with someone's vision!). Hardware and software compatibility is really key to this, and designs that intentionally reduce compatibility make life more difficult than it needs to be. I understand that the DreamColor was a special case. My experience with the NEC-branded I1D2 is that, contrary to rumor, it "works as expected" with software other than SpectraView, and it does not default to a generic I1D2 filter set / matrix. (It would be nice if this was officially confirmed or refuted somewhere.) I bought the device and the software, it works well with the PA 271 display, so what objective would be obtained by not allowing the device to function appropriately with other software that supports the I1D2? If I prefer to use different software to calibrate and profile the monitor, or do other color management tasks, and I am willing to shell out the additional cost of licenses (and/or use Argyll), X-Rite and NEC still win. Forcing me to use hardware from another vendor to use the software of my choice or need is counter-productive. If necessary, throw on a charge for an "unlocked" device, but please give us options. It is still not clear what the compatibility of the new I1 Display Pro III will be (particularly OEM versions), and there are undoubtedly parts of the marketing equation that are relevant but proprietary. As your experience with HP showed, bad management decisions can ruin a product and a reputation. From the end-user's standpoint, I hope we're not in for a repeat. Thanks for listening. Regards, --Rich > > Hi to all, > > The DreamColor display and program was probably a victim of the turf wars > inside of HP at the time it kicked off. Big promises were made by > management, they got canned and the workers were left holding this huge > political hot potato. For me, it was a tremendous learning experience in > how development programs could get so complicated so quickly and how they > could get undermined easily by shifts in management priorities and managers. > Those of you that are interested in the business aspects of technology might > want to read this article in Forbes magazine: > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-k > indle-in-the-usa/ > > The program manager of this project and the system integrator were both > heroic and dogged in their devotion to the project, but they were dealing > with too many vendors, delusional management, and no one really had a final > "say" in the system design. The firmware was (and is) especially fragile. > The USB interface was designed by another vendor and it was dog slow and it > didn't have a physical handshake with the I2C bus so the communication > protocol was especially complex. I tried to write a hardware abstraction > layer to mask all of this from developers. The guys at Dreamworks were > pushing for an open source solution and they built their own solution. Once > that decision got made, HP lost all control of the project. Read steve > dennings publications and you will have a much better understanding of why > innovation is so hard and fails so often in today's environment. > > Regards > Tom >

1 0

Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza)
by Richard Wagner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On Aug 22, 2011,Graeme Gill <graeme2(a)argyllcms.com> wrote: >> controls. In fact, I can't even calibrate/profile/verify this monitor with an EyeOne Pro. This >> expensive HP-XRite colorimeter is not supported by ANY other software - even XRite's Match, >> ProfileMaker 5, BasICColor Display, Argyll, etc. (Karl initially told me that BasICColor would > > Hmm. I'm certainly told that Argyll will work with the DreamColor version of the i1 Display 2 > sensor (support was added in V1.3.0). Not having one myself, I can't actually verify this > personally. Thanks for the heads up on Argyll support. You're correct, of course, and I missed that in the release note. The release was September 2010. I'll check it out. I assume the OEM, NEC-branded I1D2 (MDSVSENSOR) will also work with Argyll (I don't see it listed), and will give values optimized for the NEC PA displays. > I would expect that any software using the (up to date) X-Rite drivers to also work with this sensor, but that's a bit of an educated guess on my part. It would be a reasonable guess. The only software (by design / policy) that can use the X-Rite driver for this **OEM** colorimeter is the HP APS software written by X-Rite. I can run the latest release (v1.1.0.1, Dec 6, 2010) from a dedicated user account on Mac OS 10.6.8, and that was a very useful discovery. Weeks were spent trying to get the software to run without hanging on startup, and days were spent on the phone with HP's tech support to no avail. No one I spoke with at HP had any experience *at all* with this particular display or software or with OS X. I'm not alone in having had significant problems with this software. Others have had similar issues and unfortunately the "solutions" users have come up with have not worked universally. --Rich

3 2

iPad calibration/characterization...
by J Richter 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

Dear Louis and Rick Thank you for the information on these devices and the current state of color management on them. While a CM app may not be available on the devices themselves, cannot one profile a device, then convert the profile of images meant for that device so that they then appear correct on that device, regardless of whether any of the apps are truly color aware? Seems that if you are constantly creating images to show on such a device it would be simple enough to fudge the image before it loads on that device to display correctly. Of course, a different device would show those same images incorrectly. I am just suggesting that if someone has a portable device to show images on, they could tweak their images to display correctly. Make sense? Regards, Jurgen Richter The problem is that the iPad has a very different color gamut compared to sRGB. Specially in the blue hue and the saturation overall. If you prefer to think they look the same... It is up to you! My point about color management for the iPad is more about magazine, publications, etc. were color is as much important as their printed versions. Louis Dery

1 0

Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza)
by Rich Wagner 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

Tom, There is a lot of angst among X-Rite end users about exactly what X-Rite's policies are with regard to the "classes" or "flavors" of X-Rite colorimeters and the "quality" of the interactions between various software apps, monitors, and colorimeters. The HP-X-Rite colorimeter and the NEC-X-Rite colorimeter are probably the two most glaring and long-standing examples. The i1 Display Pro has just pushed the envelope further. When I bought the HP DreamColor monitor, I certainly never expected (nor was I informed) that the $350 HP-XRite DreamColor colorimeter would *only* function with the bundled HP-XRite software, or that the software would not support the Eye-One Pro, or that the software would be so poor and feature-deprived, or that other software would not have DDC access to the monitor controls. In fact, I can't even calibrate/profile/verify this monitor with an EyeOne Pro. This expensive HP-XRite colorimeter is not supported by ANY other software - even XRite's Match, ProfileMaker 5, BasICColor Display, Argyll, etc. (Karl initially told me that BasICColor would support the device, but within a few weeks noted that it would not.) Software support for this color management "solution" is non-existent. HP tech support in India is clueless, and X-Rite says it's HP's problem - X-Rite was just the contracted developer - even though the software is downloaded from X-Rite's web site. Searching for the software on X-Rite's web site is futile, so it's not easy to look for updates. So who wins? HP... in the short term, as they got my cash and that of others. Certainly not the DreamColor monitor owner. It's not exactly the color management "solution" I was looking for. It's been a royal PITA. To run the software, I have to log into a clean OS X Guest Account then log out and back into a regular user account. At least that finally works. As for the NEC-XRite colorimeter - the so-called "MDSVSENSOR2" that has matched filters for the wide-gamut monitors like the NEC PA271w I recently purchased. There is significant debate in the "user world" as to whether this device functions in "wide-gamut mode" using the "wide-gamut" matched filters/matrix *only* with "U.S. SpectraView" software, and reverts to a "retail" iOne Display 2 if used with other (non-US SpectraView) software, or whether it provides accurate data for wide-gamut monitors regardless of the software driving it. This particularly plays out with the "BasICColor vs SpectraView" debate, as there are some who claim SpectraView profiles are vastly superior, even though re-branded BasICColor Display software ships with NEC monitors in Europe. Specifically regarding the function of the MDSVSENSOR2, I have been told by a very knowledgeable source that: > The MDSVSensor2 has two calibration matrices in it, not one. If I use it with colormunki display, or eye one match, it functions just like an X-Rite branded colorimeter for non-wide-gamut displays, using the calibration matrix defined by X-Rite. When used with SpectraView II, again U.S., it specifically requests only from this colorimeter a calibration matrix defined by NEC and included in the colorimeter at the time of manufacture by X-Rite for NEC. > > My data is coming from the engineer who designed and coded the products. Really? If it is true, how is the end user supposed to know that the accuracy of the data output by the device on a wide-gamut monitor with different professional-grade, industry-standard software has been reduced?!!! If this is not true (and I don't think it is), then why is this well-respected industry leader misinformed? Just because the device *seems* to work, should one make the assumption that it works as expected? Can you see why there is confusion? In addition, there are NO specs published on these devices, unlike the certifiable EyeOne Pro. Are differences between devices really due to design, or just to poor quality control? Here are some recent comments: > I've tested more than 15 EyeOne Displays now, and I estimate that more than 30% of them showed results that were unacceptable, with an average DeltaE over 10, compared to the measurements we got from our reference calibrator. I haven't tested any that was tuned to a specific monitor, so I don't know how good the results can be in that case. But I don't recommend any of the photographers that we are working with buying a generic EyeOne Display. and > The two OEM-adjusted sensors we have are a NEC sold with the Spectraview package and HP's DreamColor unit. Our assumption is that these two Eye-One flavors are adjusted differently. The NEC sensor performs well on the PA monitor, but is grossly inaccurate on either sRGB monitors, the HP (uses LED backlighting rather than CCFL), and even wide-gamut Eizo displays that are also CCFL lit. The HP puck has similar behavior: excellent performance on the monitor it is sold with, lousy on all others. > If these two OEM flavors of i1 are actually identical, that would imply a truly worrying lack of consistency. We asked both HP and NEC for details. None were forthcoming. Without a reasonable sampling of OEM pucks to characterize there is no way to be sure. X-Rite, to the best of my knowledge, has not published accuracy and resolution specs for the Eye-One colorimeters like they do for the i1Pro spectros. What about the "flavors" of X-Rite colorimeters, in addition to those already mentioned? Here's what the user base currently thinks: > A. If you bought the X-rite version (not the OEM version) of the i1Display Pro then it will only work with the iProfiler software. > It would appear to me that not all the facts are out there yet. While the information that Rich posted confirms what Jack Bingham at Integrated Color (Color Eyes Display Pro) had said about 3rd party support for a retail version of the i1 Display Pro, my email to BasICColor, and the announcement that Spectraview would support the i1 Display Pro (although I'm not sure if it was specified whether or not it would only support the model that they are going to sell, or if it would support retail versions as well) would seem to be in disagreement with the information Rich posted and suggest that X-Rite is indeed making exceptions. I'm not sure. I think we're going to have to wait and see to find out how this pans out. Sorry, Tom, but there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there about X-Rite's products, there are a lot of compatibility issues, and I feel that X-Rite is the root of the problem. X-Rite made the deals with NEC and HP and agreed with the terms of the contracts. X-Rite is also determining the policies of its own branded hardware and software. I have no axe to grind with X-Rite, I just haven't cared for the direction X-Rite has been going the past several years. I don't want one custom $350 colorimeter for every monitor I ever own, with its own custom software, and with variable compatibility with other software I choose to use. I will no longer buy into a closed system. A clear and unequivocal public policy from X-Rite, along with, perhaps, a compatibility list with various software packages and hardware would go a long way toward eliminating the confusion and the angst. Then the consumer can make a more informed choice. Regards, --Rich Wagner

2 1

Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza)
by Bob Frost 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

From: Rich Wagner > I don't want one custom $350 colorimeter for every monitor I ever own, > with its own custom software, and with variable >compatibility with other > software I choose to use. I will no longer buy into a closed system. But I thought that a custom colorimeter is the only way to go if you want the best results (apart from an exotic spectroradiometer or something like Basiccolor Discus). You can buy cheaper general purpose colorimeters, but they won't give the same results as one designed for a particular type of monitor. My old Sony Artisan (that was highly thought of) had a custom colorimeter. The new Eizo's have built-in custom colorimeters that apparently outperform GP colorimeters and spectrophotometers. You have the choice of a GP device (with variable results) or a custom device (with good, consistent results). If you bought the wrong one, then tough! Or complain to HP or NEC that they didn't make it clear that they were selling custom devices. I don't really see that it is Xrite's fault for selling HP or NEC custom devices that are better for their monitors than the GP devices they sell for anyone's monitors. Bob Frost

5 8

HP,,XRite..Apple Lion
by dennyCoyle 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

so where might one run to get an update for the Xrite(HP) colorimeter for the HP DreamColor 2480,,,which no longer works under Lion,,,no Power PC….this colorimeter has been the biggest hassle since the beginning….started with no support for apple,,,hp then "contracted" with xrite for a fix,,,took forever to get it to work with snow leopard and now this non support in lion…or am i missing the appropriate link…. thanks dennis

1 0

Re: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support
by Paul Sherfield 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

Hi Tom So after all the discussion on this area, the question to you is, do companies such as Eizo and NEC have SDK's for the new X Rite display profiling devices, and if not, when? Regards Paul Sherfield The Missing Horse Consultancy Ltd New telephone number: 00 44 1442 207626 Mobile: 00 44 7899 906385 Fax: 0872 111 7709 http://www.missinghorsecons.co.uk Follow us on: Twitter.com/missinghorse Apple Solutions Expert - Print & Publishing Member - UK TC130 Technical Advisory Group (ISO 12647 Printing Standards) UK Expert: ISO TC130/Working Group 13 on certification of printing standards Chair – BPIF UK ISO 12647 Certification Steering Group Member - BPIF Technical Standards Committee Lean and green? To save money and become a greener printer, see http://www.greenprinter.co.uk http://www.keeconsultants.com Reduce your carbon footprint http://www.1010uk.org This email and any attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying or other distribution is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies from your system. Email may be susceptible to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment. We do not accept liability for any such corruption, interception or amendment or the consequences thereof. We do not accept liability for any action or inaction by the recipient as a result of advice or information contained within this email. > From: "colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com> > Reply-To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:34:30 -0700 (PDT) > To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 186 > > Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > colorsync-users-owner(a)lists.apple.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza) > 2. Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (MARK SEGAL) > 3. Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza) > 4. Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (MARK SEGAL) > 5. Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > (Jan-Peter Homann) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:55:03 -0400 > From: Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> > Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > To: Ernst Dinkla <info(a)pigment-print.com>, Karl Koch > <kk(a)basICColor.de>, Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Message-ID: <CA73E377.AA6A%tlianza(a)xrite.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > To all, > > It's hard to respond to so many erroneous opinions at one time, but I will > make some general comments. > > 1. OEM products. When an OEM purchases a product from us, it is their > product. There may be manufacturing differences, there may be firmware > differences. Most important, X-rite cannot make a change to the product > without specific agreement with the OEM. We can, and often do, make changes > in the retail line of products. OEMs make specific volume commitments and > often invest a significant amount of R&D and supply chain cost to implement > the product in their product line. They also service the product. Some > display vendors put the calibration software in the display. They have > every right to insist on absolute customization. When I designed the Sony > Artisan hardware I had to use a completely different strategy for > suppression of static because their standards exceeded the FCC and European > standards of the time. We also had to re-engineer the cable so that the > insulation could be physically consumed. This required a change in the > production techniques of the cable and very specific testing for impurities. > OEM's invest heavily in their products and they need to protect that > investment. They are not screwing the consumer. Comments like that > indicate a total ignorance of the position that OEM's are in. > > 2. The small developer- Independent developers are an important part of our > business. The question is: who supports the hardware product? A developer > like Graeme Gill "cracks" our products at "arm's length". In the US, this > is completely legal and has been defended in court many times (the DOS BIOS > is a good example of how this worked). He applies his technology to a > product that was legally purchased through retail channels. What would be > illegal would be to make copies of our software and sell it using the > cracked technology or to ship our drivers, unlicensed, to the field. In the > life a given hardware product, independent software developers will make > many upgrades and not all of them will be free. We make money on hardware > once, and that piece of hardware is an "enabler" for many other companies > over the course of its lifetime. > > I believe that there will be a mechanism for independent developers to use > the latest technology colorimeter, purchased through retail channels, but I > need to confirm that. Understand that the latest technology products are > significantly different than the earlier products and do require a certain > amount of training to implement properly. It's not in anyone's best interest > to open the technology to everyone who thinks they are a developer until we > understand the support and training costs. Not everyone is a Karl or > Graeme. Is it in the consumers best interests to have poor software > implementations of new hardware technology? Should we make exceptions for > certain developers who may have the knowledge and not allow other developers > into the fray? How do we make sure that an iSV product doesn't kill a > retail product by overlaying different dll's or packages? How do we cover > release of information that is currently under application for patent? How > do we inform ISV's of changes that are warranted by changes in operating > systems. How do we justify the costs of system support to the ISV community > given that we make money only on the sale of the hardware item? There is > nothing nefarious here, it just takes time and resources which are not > available at the moment. > > Third hand comments about internal corporate policy (which, by the way is > probably covered by NDA) such as those from Mr Wagner, should not generate > the frenzy of nonsense that we have seen on this list. Snarky and > uninformed comments like those of Mr. Segal add nothing to a solution to the > issues of ISV support. I hope that you all have a better understanding of > the situation and we can end this mindless thread started with third hand > information taken out of the context of reality..... > > Regards, > Tom Lianza > > > > > > > > On 8/19/11 6:25 AM, "Ernst Dinkla" <info(a)pigment-print.com> wrote: > >> On 08/19/2011 09:57 AM, Karl Koch wrote: >>> >>> *snip* >>> >>>> If the communication interface for the Dreamcolor versions could be >>>> cracked >>>> I >>>> suppose that ccmxmake could adapt the filtering sufficiently for other >>>> monitor >>>> types. There may even be some experience on adaption with the NEC variety. >>> >>> <irony> I´m not quite sure, cracking software or communication interfaces >>> is >>> quite legal</irony> >>> Looks like that´s what had happened in ccmxmake, bt it can well be that >>> Argyll >>> has permission to do so. >> >> Let me rephrase that to: "an alternative driver created for". >> >>> *snip* >>> >>>> The current policy is bad for consumers and is anticompetitive. >>> >>> I don´t think so! On the contrary: This policy (with which I don´t agree >>> either, >>> but it´s X-Rite´s decision and none of my business) will encourage >>> competitors >>> to develop, manufacture and sell new instruments without these restrictions. >>> And >>> thus we will have a competitive situation not only in the field of software, >>> but >>> also in hardware. This will break X-Rite´s monopoly – and they have begged >>> for >>> it ;-) >> >> My thoughts too. Too much good CM software around that needs compatible >> hardware. What came to the surface in hard- and software so far from >> the GM + M + X merges is not convincing. Including more restrictions on >> its use + applying absurd new restrictions on the software it had to >> replace. What looked like a potential monopolist some years ago could be >> a niche player soon enough with this policy. A policy that Apple might >> exploit successfully but not X-rite. >> >> A redesign of for example the SpectroCam could have a bright future, >> bundling it with a nice colorimeter for monitor calibration would >> overcome the US patent issue too. Add something like Argyll's ccmxmake >> and that bundle delivers more than the sum of two devices. Barbieri is >> still alive, the Spyder colorimeters improved a lot and with a Chinese >> CM software company running now it would be surprising if there would >> not appear some hardware from that part of the world too. > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:19:10 -0700 (PDT) > From: MARK SEGAL <mgsegal(a)rogers.com> > Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > To: Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com>, Ernst Dinkla > <info(a)pigment-print.com>, Karl Koch <kk(a)basICColor.de>, > "Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" <Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Message-ID: > <1313763550.55032.YahooMailNeo(a)web88603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > "Reality" is perceived by different people in different ways depending on, > amongst other things, at which end of the spectrum they happen to sit, what > their interests are, and how these matters affect them personally. While some > peoples' reality is other peoples' snark, we'll see over time which > perspective prevails.And if there is really critical misinformation out here, > maybe the company needs to do more to correct that. Over the years of > corporate history, the demise of bigger fish than XRite started when they just > couldn't truly and seriously see beyond themselves and their self-perceived > immediate interests. > > > Mark > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> > To: Ernst Dinkla <info(a)pigment-print.com>; Karl Koch <kk(a)basICColor.de>; > Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:55:03 AM > Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > > To all, > > It's hard to respond to so many erroneous opinions at one time, but I will > make some general comments. > > 1. OEM products. When an OEM purchases a product from us, it is their > product. There may be manufacturing differences, there may be firmware > differences. Most important, X-rite cannot make a change to the product > without specific agreement with the OEM. We can, and often do, make changes > in the retail line of products. OEMs make specific volume commitments and > often invest a significant amount of R&D and supply chain cost to implement > the product in their product line. They also service the product. Some > display vendors put the calibration software in the display. They have > every right to insist on absolute customization. When I designed the Sony > Artisan hardware I had to use a completely different strategy for > suppression of static because their standards exceeded the FCC and European > standards of the time. We also had to re-engineer the cable so that the > insulation could be physically consumed. This required a change in the > production techniques of the cable and very specific testing for impurities. > OEM's invest heavily in their products and they need to protect that > investment. They are not screwing the consumer. Comments like that > indicate a total ignorance of the position that OEM's are in. > > 2. The small developer- Independent developers are an important part of our > business. The question is: who supports the hardware product? A developer > like Graeme Gill "cracks" our products at "arm's length". In the US, this > is completely legal and has been defended in court many times (the DOS BIOS > is a good example of how this worked). He applies his technology to a > product that was legally purchased through retail channels. What would be > illegal would be to make copies of our software and sell it using the > cracked technology or to ship our drivers, unlicensed, to the field. In the > life a given hardware product, independent software developers will make > many upgrades and not all of them will be free. We make money on hardware > once, and that piece of hardware is an "enabler" for many other companies > over the course of its lifetime. > > I believe that there will be a mechanism for independent developers to use > the latest technology colorimeter, purchased through retail channels, but I > need to confirm that. Understand that the latest technology products are > significantly different than the earlier products and do require a certain > amount of training to implement properly. It's not in anyone's best interest > to open the technology to everyone who thinks they are a developer until we > understand the support and training costs. Not everyone is a Karl or > Graeme. Is it in the consumers best interests to have poor software > implementations of new hardware technology? Should we make exceptions for > certain developers who may have the knowledge and not allow other developers > into the fray? How do we make sure that an iSV product doesn't kill a > retail product by overlaying different dll's or packages? How do we cover > release of information that is currently under application for patent? How > do we inform ISV's of changes that are warranted by changes in operating > systems. How do we justify the costs of system support to the ISV community > given that we make money only on the sale of the hardware item? There is > nothing nefarious here, it just takes time and resources which are not > available at the moment. > > Third hand comments about internal corporate policy (which, by the way is > probably covered by NDA) such as those from Mr Wagner, should not generate > the frenzy of nonsense that we have seen on this list. Snarky and > uninformed comments like those of Mr. Segal add nothing to a solution to the > issues of ISV support. I hope that you all have a better understanding of > the situation and we can end this mindless thread started with third hand > information taken out of the context of reality..... > > Regards, > Tom Lianza > > > > > > > > On 8/19/11 6:25 AM, "Ernst Dinkla" <info(a)pigment-print.com> wrote: > >> On 08/19/2011 09:57 AM, Karl Koch wrote: >>> >>> *snip* >>> >>>> If the communication interface for the Dreamcolor versions could be >>>> cracked >>>> I >>>> suppose that ccmxmake could adapt the filtering sufficiently for other >>>> monitor >>>> types. There may even be some experience on adaption with the NEC >>>> variety. >>> >>> <irony> I´m not quite sure, cracking software or communication interfaces >>> is >>> quite legal</irony> >>> Looks like that´s what had happened in ccmxmake, bt it can well be that >>> Argyll >>> has permission to do so. >> >> Let me rephrase that to: "an alternative driver created for". >> >>> *snip* >>> >>>> The current policy is bad for consumers and is anticompetitive. >>> >>> I don´t think so! On the contrary: This policy (with which I don´t agree >>> either, >>> but it´s X-Rite´s decision and none of my business) will encourage >>> competitors >>> to develop, manufacture and sell new instruments without these restrictions. >>> And >>> thus we will have a competitive situation not only in the field of software, >>> but >>> also in hardware. This will break X-Rite´s monopoly – and they have begged >>> for >>> it ;-) >> >> My thoughts too. Too much good CM software around that needs compatible >> hardware. What came to the surface in hard- and software so far from >> the GM + M + X merges is not convincing. Including more restrictions on >> its use + applying absurd new restrictions on the software it had to >> replace. What looked like a potential monopolist some years ago could be >> a niche player soon enough with this policy. A policy that Apple might >> exploit successfully but not X-rite. >> >> A redesign of for example the SpectroCam could have a bright future, >> bundling it with a nice colorimeter for monitor calibration would >> overcome the US patent issue too. Add something like Argyll's ccmxmake >> and that bundle delivers more than the sum of two devices. Barbieri is >> still alive, the Spyder colorimeters improved a lot and with a Chinese >> CM software company running now it would be surprising if there would >> not appear some hardware from that part of the world too. > > > 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 (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/mgsegal%40rogers.com > > This email sent to mgsegal(a)rogers.com > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:54:25 -0400 > From: Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> > Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > To: MARK SEGAL <mgsegal(a)rogers.com>, Ernst Dinkla > <info(a)pigment-print.com>, Karl Koch <kk(a)basICColor.de>, > "Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" <Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Message-ID: <CA73F161.AA74%tlianza(a)xrite.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" > > Just so there is no misunderstanding here: What got published was second or > third hand information that was possibly released in violation of an NDA. >> From this source, a perception developed that we, X-rite, were somehow > trying to limit the product for our own uses, which was completely untrue. >> From this, we see a demand to contact your X-rite representative and raise a > great flag of rebellion. I tried to intelligently point out to those who > can read, that there are significant issues which take time and resources > to finalize, that are not available at the moment. The new technology is > not trivial to implement. We also have two separate implementation paths, > one for OEM’s and another for Developers, both internal and external. The > documentation for the second path was recently completed but to be frank, it > is hard for me to follow and there is steep learning curve because of all > the issues I posed earlier in the post. The policy that is mentioned at the > release of the product is not necessarily a policy that covers the life of > the product. X-rite’s “self-perceived immediate interests” are making sure > that we don’t get swamped by developer issues that overwhelm the technical > support team which will then lead to poor implementations in the field. > > Now with my comment about “uninformed”: the filter issue you referred to > was a GLASS filter not plastic filter issue and it was cured many months > ago. > > Regards, > Tom > > > > > On 8/19/11 10:19 AM, "MARK SEGAL" <mgsegal(a)rogers.com> wrote: > >> "Reality" is perceived by different people in different ways depending on, >> amongst other things, at which end of the spectrum they happen to sit, what >> their interests are, and how these matters affect them personally. While some >> peoples' reality is other peoples' snark, we'll see over time which >> perspective prevails. And if there is really critical misinformation out >> here, >> maybe the company needs to do more to correct that. Over the years of >> corporate history, the demise of bigger fish than XRite started when they >> just >> couldn't truly and seriously see beyond themselves and their self-perceived >> immediate interests. >> >> Mark >> >> From: Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> >> To: Ernst Dinkla <info(a)pigment-print.com>; Karl Koch <kk(a)basICColor.de>; >> Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:55:03 AM >> Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support >> >> To all, >> >> It's hard to respond to so many erroneous opinions at one time, but I will >> make some general comments. >> >> 1. OEM products. When an OEM purchases a product from us, it is their >> product. There may be manufacturing differences, there may be firmware >> differences. Most important, X-rite cannot make a change to the product >> without specific agreement with the OEM. We can, and often do, make changes >> in the retail line of products. OEMs make specific volume commitments and >> often invest a significant amount of R&D and supply chain cost to implement >> the product in their product line. They also service the product. Some >> display vendors put the calibration software in the display. They have >> every right to insist on absolute customization. When I designed the Sony >> Artisan hardware I had to use a completely different strategy for >> suppression of static because their standards exceeded the FCC and European >> standards of the time. We also had to re-engineer the cable so that the >> insulation could be physically consumed. This required a change in the >> production techniques of the cable and very specific testing for impurities. >> OEM's invest heavily in their products and they need to protect that >> investment. They are not screwing the consumer. Comments like that >> indicate a total ignorance of the position that OEM's are in. >> >> 2. The small developer- Independent developers are an important part of our >> business. The question is: who supports the hardware product? A developer >> like Graeme Gill "cracks" our products at "arm's length". In the US, this >> is completely legal and has been defended in court many times (the DOS BIOS >> is a good example of how this worked). He applies his technology to a >> product that was legally purchased through retail channels. What would be >> illegal would be to make copies of our software and sell it using the >> cracked technology or to ship our drivers, unlicensed, to the field. In the >> life a given hardware product, independent software developers will make >> many upgrades and not all of them will be free. We make money on hardware >> once, and that piece of hardware is an "enabler" for many other companies >> over the course of its lifetime. >> >> I believe that there will be a mechanism for independent developers to use >> the latest technology colorimeter, purchased through retail channels, but I >> need to confirm that. Understand that the latest technology products are >> significantly different than the earlier products and do require a certain >> amount of training to implement properly. It's not in anyone's best interest >> to open the technology to everyone who thinks they are a developer until we >> understand the support and training costs. Not everyone is a Karl or >> Graeme. Is it in the consumers best interests to have poor software >> implementations of new hardware technology? Should we make exceptions for >> certain developers who may have the knowledge and not allow other developers >> into the fray? How do we make sure that an iSV product doesn't kill a >> retail product by overlaying different dll's or packages? How do we cover >> release of information that is currently under application for patent? How >> do we inform ISV's of changes that are warranted by changes in operating >> systems. How do we justify the costs of system support to the ISV community >> given that we make money only on the sale of the hardware item? There is >> nothing nefarious here, it just takes time and resources which are not >> available at the moment. >> >> Third hand comments about internal corporate policy (which, by the way is >> probably covered by NDA) such as those from Mr Wagner, should not generate >> the frenzy of nonsense that we have seen on this list. Snarky and >> uninformed comments like those of Mr. Segal add nothing to a solution to the >> issues of ISV support. I hope that you all have a better understanding of >> the situation and we can end this mindless thread started with third hand >> information taken out of the context of reality..... >> >> Regards, >> Tom Lianza >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/19/11 6:25 AM, "Ernst Dinkla" <info(a)pigment-print.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 08/19/2011 09:57 AM, Karl Koch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *snip* >>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the communication interface for the Dreamcolor versions could be >>>>> cracked >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> suppose that ccmxmake could adapt the filtering sufficiently for other >>>>>>>> monitor >>>>>>>> types. There may even be some experience on adaption with the NEC >>>>> variety. >>>>>> >>>>>> <irony> I´m not quite sure, cracking software or communication >>>> interfaces is >>>>>> quite legal</irony> >>>>>> Looks like that´s what had happened in ccmxmake, bt it can well be that >>>>>> Argyll >>>>>> has permission to do so. >>>> >>>> Let me rephrase that to: "an alternative driver created for". >>>> >>>>>> *snip* >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The current policy is bad for consumers and is anticompetitive. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don´t think so! On the contrary: This policy (with which I don´t agree >>>>>> either, >>>>>> but it´s X-Rite´s decision and none of my business) will encourage >>>>>> competitors >>>>>> to develop, manufacture and sell new instruments without these >>>> restrictions. >>>>>> And >>>>>> thus we will have a competitive situation not only in the field of >>>> software, >>>>>> but >>>>>> also in hardware. This will break X-Rite´s monopoly – and they have >>>> begged >>>>>> for >>>>>> it ;-) >>>> >>>> My thoughts too. Too much good CM software around that needs compatible >>>> hardware. What came to the surface in hard- and software so far from >>>> the GM + M + X merges is not convincing. Including more restrictions on >>>> its use + applying absurd new restrictions on the software it had to >>>> replace. What looked like a potential monopolist some years ago could be >>>> a niche player soon enough with this policy. A policy that Apple might >>>> exploit successfully but not X-rite. >>>> >>>> A redesign of for example the SpectroCam could have a bright future, >>>> bundling it with a nice colorimeter for monitor calibration would >>>> overcome the US patent issue too. Add something like Argyll's ccmxmake >>>> and that bundle delivers more than the sum of two devices. Barbieri is >>>> still alive, the Spyder colorimeters improved a lot and with a Chinese >>>> CM software company running now it would be surprising if there would >>>> not appear some hardware from that part of the world too. >> >> >> 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 (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/mgsegal%40rogers.com >> >> This email sent to mgsegal(a)rogers.com >> >> >> > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:01:57 -0700 (PDT) > From: MARK SEGAL <mgsegal(a)rogers.com> > Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > To: Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com>, Ernst Dinkla > <info(a)pigment-print.com>, Karl Koch <kk(a)basICColor.de>, > "Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" <Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Message-ID: > <1313766117.36223.YahooMailNeo(a)web88618.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Fine Tom, let there be peace, and we will see over time how it all shakes out > - BTW, I did not make the comment about plastic filters, though I am aware it > was an issue. > > Meanwhile a malicious hack was made a few minutes ago to remove me from this > List, evidence of which was a notice I received asking to confirm MY request > to be delisted. I have no idea who generated that nonsense, so I have asked > Apple to investigate it and I have confirmed that I had no intention of > removing myself from the List. I mention this here so that readers know there > are some out there who just can't play by the rules and confine their > behaviour to discussion, whether the ideas discussed are in their minds > correct or not so correct. > > Â > Mark > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> > To: MARK SEGAL <mgsegal(a)rogers.com>; Ernst Dinkla <info(a)pigment-print.com>; > Karl Koch <kk(a)basICColor.de>; "Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:54:25 AM > Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > > > Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support Just so there is no > misunderstanding here: Â What got published was second or third hand > information that was possibly released in violation of an NDA. Â From this > source, a perception developed that we, X-rite, were Â somehow trying to limit > the product for our own uses, which was completely untrue. Â From this, we see > a demand to contact your X-rite representative and raise a great flag of > rebellion. Â Â I tried to intelligently point out to those who can read, that > there are significant issues which take time and resources Â to finalize, that > are not available at the moment. Â The new technology is not trivial to > implement. Â We also have two separate implementation paths, one for OEMâ•˙s > and another for Developers, both internal and external. Â The documentation > for the second path was recently completed but to be frank, it is hard for me > to follow and there is steep learning curve because of all the > issues I posed earlier in the post. Â The policy that is mentioned at the > release of the product is not necessarily a policy that covers the life of the > product. Â X-riteâ•˙s â•˛self-perceived immediate interestsâ•ˇ are making sure > that we donâ•˙t get swamped by developer issues that overwhelm the technical > support team which will then lead to poor implementations in the field. Â > > Now with my comment about â•˛uninformedâ•ˇ: Â the filter issue you referred to > was a GLASS filter not plastic filter issue and it was cured many months ago. > Â > > Regards, > Tom > > > > > On 8/19/11 10:19 AM, "MARK SEGAL" <mgsegal(a)rogers.com> wrote: > > > "Reality" is perceived by different people in different ways depending on, > amongst other things, at which end of the spectrum they happen to sit, what > their interests are, and how these matters affect them personally. While some > peoples' reality is other peoples' snark, we'll see over time which > perspective prevails. And if there is really critical misinformation out here, > maybe the company needs to do more to correct that. Over the years of > corporate history, the demise of bigger fish than XRite started when they just > couldn't truly and seriously see beyond themselves and their self-perceived > immediate interests. >> Â >> Mark >> >> ________________________________ >> From:Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> >> To: Ernst Dinkla <info(a)pigment-print.com>; Karl Koch <kk(a)basICColor.de>; >> Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:55:03 AM >> Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support >> >> To all, >> >> It's hard to respond to so many erroneous opinions at one time, but I will >> make some general comments. >> >> 1. OEM products. Â When an OEM purchases a product from us, it is their >> product. Â There may be manufacturing differences, there may be firmware >> differences. Â Most important, X-rite cannot make a change to the product >> without specific agreement with the OEM. Â We can, and often do, make changes >> in the retail line of products. Â OEMs make specific volume commitments and >> often invest a significant amount of R&D and supply chain cost to implement >> the product in their product line. Â They also service the product. Â Some >> display vendors put the calibration software in the display. Â They have >> every right to insist on absolute customization. When I designed the Sony >> Artisan hardware I had to use a completely different strategy for >> suppression of static because their standards exceeded the FCC and European >> standards of the time. Â We also had to re-engineer the cable so that the >> insulation could be physically consumed. Â This required a change in the >> production techniques of the cable and very specific testing for impurities. >> OEM's invest heavily in their products and they need to protect that >> investment. Â They are not screwing the consumer. Â Comments like that >> indicate a total ignorance of the position that OEM's are in. >> >> 2. The small developer- Independent developers are an important part of our >> business. Â The question is: who supports the hardware product? A developer >> like Graeme Gill "cracks" our products at "arm's length". Â In the US, this >> is completely legal and has been defended in court many times (the DOS BIOS >> is a good example of how this worked). Â He applies his technology to a >> product that was legally purchased through retail channels. Â What would be >> illegal would be to make copies of our software and sell it using the >> cracked technology or to ship our drivers, unlicensed, to the field. In the >> life a given hardware product, independent software developers will make >> many upgrades and not all of them will be free. Â We make money on hardware >> once, and that piece of hardware is an "enabler" for many other companies >> over the course of its lifetime. >> >> I believe that there Â will be a mechanism for independent developers to use >> the latest technology colorimeter, purchased through retail channels, but I >> need to confirm that. Â Understand that the latest technology products are >> significantly different than the earlier products and do require a certain >> amount of training to implement properly. It's not in anyone's best interest >> to open the technology to everyone who thinks they are a developer until we >> understand the support and training costs. Â Not everyone is a Karl or >> Graeme. Â Is it in the consumers best interests to have poor software >> implementations of new hardware technology? Â Should we make exceptions for >> certain developers who may have the knowledge and not allow other developers >> into the fray? Â How do we make sure that an iSV product doesn't kill a >> retail product by overlaying different dll's or packages? Â Â How do we cover >> release of information that is currently under application for patent? Â How >> do we inform ISV's of changes that are warranted by changes in operating >> systems. Â How do we justify the costs of system support to the ISV community >> given that we make money only on the sale of the hardware item? There is >> nothing nefarious here, it just takes time and resources which are not >> available at the moment. >> >> Third hand comments about internal corporate policy (which, by the way is >> probably covered by NDA) Â such as those from Mr Wagner, should not generate >> the frenzy of nonsense that we have seen on this list. Â Snarky and >> uninformed comments like those of Mr. Segal add nothing to a solution to the >> issues of ISV support. I hope that you all have a better understanding of >> the situation and we can end this mindless thread started with third hand >> information taken out of the context of reality..... >> >> Â Regards, >> Tom Lianza >> >> >> >> >> Â Â >> >> >> On 8/19/11 6:25 AM, "Ernst Dinkla" <info(a)pigment-print.com> wrote: >> >>> On 08/19/2011 09:57 AM, Karl Koch wrote: >>>> >>>> *snip* >>>> >>>>> Â If the communication interface for the Dreamcolor versions could be >>>>> cracked >>>>> I >>>>> Â suppose that ccmxmake could adapt the filtering sufficiently for other >>>>> monitor >>>>> Â types. There may even be some experience on adaption with the NEC >>>>> variety. >>>> >>>> <irony> Â IÂ´m not quite sure, cracking software or communication >>>> interfaces is >>>> quite legal</irony> >>>> Looks like thatÂ´s what had happened in ccmxmake, bt it can well be that >>>> Argyll >>>> has permission to do so. >>> >>> Let me rephrase that to: "an alternative driver created for". >>> >>>> *snip* >>>> >>>>> Â The current policy is bad for consumers and is anticompetitive. >>>> >>>> I donÂ´t think so! On the contrary: This policy (with which I donÂ´t agree >>>> either, >>>> but itÂ´s X-RiteÂ´s decision and none of my business) will encourage >>>> competitors >>>> to develop, manufacture and sell new instruments without these >>>> restrictions. >>>> And >>>> thus we will have a competitive situation not only in the field of >>>> software, >>>> but >>>> also in hardware. This will break X-RiteÂ´s monopoly â•„ and they have >>>> begged >>>> for >>>> it ;-) >>> >>> My thoughts too. Too much good CM software around that needs compatible >>> hardware. What Â came to the surface in hard- and software so far from >>> the GM + M + X merges is not convincing. Including more restrictions on >>> its use + applying absurd new restrictions on the software it had to >>> replace. What looked like a potential monopolist some years ago could be >>> a niche player soon enough with this policy. A policy that Apple might >>> exploit successfully but not X-rite. >>> >>> A redesign of for example the SpectroCam could have a bright future, >>> bundling it with a nice colorimeter for monitor calibration would >>> overcome the US patent issue too. Add something like Argyll's ccmxmake >>> and that bundle delivers more than the sum of two devices. Barbieri is >>> still alive, the Spyder colorimeters improved a lot and with a Chinese >>> CM software company running now it would be surprising if there would >>> not appear some hardware from that part of the world too. >> >> >> 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. >> Â _______________________________________________ >> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >> Colorsync-users mailing list Â Â Â Â Â (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/mgsegal%40rogers.com >> >> This email sent to mgsegal(a)rogers.com >> >> >> >> > 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. > Â Â Â–Â–Â Â > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:32:27 +0200 > From: Jan-Peter Homann <homann(a)colormanagement.de> > Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com, Tom Lianza <tlianza(a)xrite.com> > Message-ID: <4E4E820B.1070900(a)colormanagement.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hello Tom, > Thanks for replying fast and detailed to the list. I´m currently talking > with different developers and I have the impression, that X-Rite made a > big change in the licensing policy from i1 Pro to i1 Display Pro. > > Some developers I have talked with, stated that I should not publish > details about our talks. > But the current impression I have, is that much less developers will > support the i1 Display Pro compared to the i1 Pro. > > And this is not only about small developers. > > I asked an representative from an important japanese display vendorabout > support for i1 Display Pro in their own display calibration solution. > > He stated, that he can currently can´t state if and when they will > support the i1 Display Pro and that I know the discussion at the > colorsync mailinglist.... > > > Regards > Jan-Peter Homann > > > > -- > ---------- Please note the new adress -------------- > > homann colormanagement --------- fon +49 30 611 075 18 > Jan-Peter Homann ------------ mobile +49 171 54 70 358 > Cotheniusstr. 3 -------- http://www.colormanagement.de > 10407 Berlin -------- mailto:homann@colormanagement.de > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Colorsync-users mailing list > Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > > End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 186 > *********************************************** >

1 0

Colorimeters and third-party developer support
by Rich Wagner 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

Hardware-agnostic software packages used in color management (such as Argyll, ColorEyes, BasICColor, CalPC, PatchTool, BabelColor CT&A, and others) currently support an impressive number of sensing devices. Unfortunately, these outstanding software applications will not be able to support several new color measurement devices, thanks to new policies from X-Rite. A few weeks ago X-Rite announced the availability of two new colorimeters: the i1 Display Pro and the ColorMunki Display. Here is the current status on third-party software support for these X-Rite products, as noted by a third-party software developer: ColorMunki Display As in the past for previous Munki instruments, there is no third party Software Development Kit (SDK) available. An SDK is essentially the driver and software libraries that enable third party developers to communicate with the instrument. This does not mean that the SDK does not (or could not) exist, it only means that it is not available to third-party developers; in other words, this is a business decision! Thus, until such an SDK is available, third party developers cannot provide support for the Munki series of instruments (just as they currently cannot provide support for the HP DreamColor-branded, i1-Display2-based colorimeter). i1 Display Pro This model replaces the i1 Display2. As with the i1 Display2, there are three Categories of the i1 Display Pro available: Category (a)- The instruments sold by X-Rite under the X-Rite name (also called the retail version). In the past, the i1 SDK could be used for instruments in this category (e.g., the i1 Display 2); this is NOT possible with the SDK of the i1 Display Pro. Category (b)- The instruments sold by a third party (called Original Equipment Manufacturer, or OEM). The SDK could, and can still be used for instruments in this category. However, in the past such instruments had the same communication interface specifications as the X-Rite retail model; this is no longer the case. Category (c)- The instruments sold by an OEM, which have communication interface specifications DIFFERENT from the Category (b) model. The SDK cannot be used to communicate with those instruments. As examples, the custom i1 Display2 recommended by NEC for many wide-gamut NEC monitors (called the MDSVSENSOR2) is a Category (b) model while the HP-branded i1 Display2 (HP DreamColor Advanced Profiling Solution, KZ300AA) sold by HP for use with the HP DreamColor monitors is a Category (c) model. (Note that while the NEC MDSVSENSOR2 has the same communication interface as the standard i1 Display2, it has a different set of sensor filters which is better adapted to the wide gamut primaries of many NEC monitors.) In the past, the X-Rite SDK could be used with the Category (a) and (b) instruments; this explains, for instance, why third party software can be used with the X-Rite i1 Display2 and the NEC i1 MDSVSENSOR2, but not with the HP DreamColor i1 Display2. With the new X-Rite policies, the i1 Display Pro sold by X-Rite can *ONLY* be used with i1 Profiler; it *CANNOT* be used with the i1 Display Pro SDK. This means that third party developers *cannot* support this instrument. Third party developers can only support the Category (b) and (c) instruments (Category (c) instruments will also require a separate agreement between the third-party developer and the licensed OEM). In addition, Category (b) and (c) instruments *CANNOT* be used with the i1 Profiler software (or other X-Rite software); if you want to use i1 Profiler, you need to buy a retail i1 Display Pro from X-Rite. These new policies severely limit customer benefits since the new colorimeters can only be used with the bundled software they are sold with (from either the OEM or from X-Rite). This really stinks!!! These changes do not affect the i1 Pro (a spectrophotometer that provides spectral data) as it is not currently being replaced by a new model, and is still supported by the older third party X-Rite SDK. For those concerned about the implications of these new X-Rite policies - in particular, if you feel that you (or your clients) would benefit from using third party software with an X-Rite branded ColorMunki Display or i1 Display Pro - I suggest you communicate with your X-Rite representative or file a complaint via the X-Rite general support page: http://www.xrite.com/contact_us.aspx?reasonid=3 Personally, I will not buy another X-Rite product until this policy is changed. The current policy is bad for consumers and is anti-competetive. Competitors, start your engines... and consumers, consider your choices carefully before making purchases. --Rich Wagner

7 14

picking the best laser printer
by Dean Mackey 19 Aug '11

19 Aug '11

Hello everyone, The lease is up on our Phaser 7700 and my department is having to venture back out into the wild to find a replacement printer. To make a long story short, the list of options that I have been given are: 1) Konica-Minolta Bizhub C280 (We have a possible option to add a Fiery Controller if there is a compelling reason) 2) Canon 5030 (This unit also has an option to add a Fiery controller) 3) Xerox WorkCentre W754SP Has any one had any experience with these units to know if one has any advantages for the others in terms of color quality or manageability? I would appreciate any information that would help narrow things down and guide this decision process. Thanks in advance, Dean --------------------------------------------- Dean Mackey Senior Graphic Designer Creative Services | Rice University | Allen Center, Suite 200 - MS 95 | 6100 S. Main, Houston, TX 77005 | Office 713.348.6767 | Fax 713.348.6757 | dmack(a)rice.edu

3 2