April 2012 - colorsync-users

X-rite acquisition.
by Tom Lianza 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

Hi to all As some of you may have heard, X-rite and Danaher have entered into a definitive merger agreement that has X-rite being purchased out right at $5.50 per share. I want to take a moment to assure our stake holders (share holders, customers, and partners), that this is a very positive move in the evolution of X-rite. On a personal note, when I learned that we were being acquired by Danaher, I was quite pleased. In general, their acquisitions have grown stronger and they generally have applied an "arms length" management philosophy to their purchased divisions. If you look at their corporate portfolio you will see just how strong they are and X-rite gains some significant benefits in the areas of information management and supply chain. The only real difference one will see in the short term is the elimination of X-rite stock from the public market. I would like to emphasize to our customers and partners that you should see no disruption or major changes in personnel, products or facilities. You may see some new faces, but most, or all, of these new hires came on before the merger, as result of new programs, not as a result of the merger. As you will see at Drupa we are moving forward with a number of new initiatives, such as PantoneLive, as well as a number of new products. The new i1Pro was released 11 April and there are more products to follow. The acquisition puts X-rite/ Pantone in a family of high technology companies that share synergistic requirements which are well served by the scale of company like Danaher. We, at X-rite, look forward to working with our customers and partners with the confidence that a strong team of business associates and a secure financial outlook provides. Regards, Tom Lianza Come visit us at Drupa May 3-16, 2012 in Dusseldorf, Germany www.xrite.com/events/drupa <br><br> 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.

4 3

Apple TV and ICC
by Marcelo Copetti 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Good afternoon Is possible to use Apple TV with Color Management to manage different monitors and match all? Marcelo Copetti marcelo(a)easycolor.com.br 41 9941-1740

1 0

Re: Displays Good, Better, Bes
by Paul Sherfield 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

Always an interesting decision re a 'good' display but cannot afford a SpectraView or Eizo CN! When faced with this I am avising clients to look at the Eizo Flexscan range using EyeOneDisplayPro for calibration, or the NEC PA range. The best price in the UK for an EIZO FlexScan S2234 (22") is around £340.00. These monitors can display around 94% of Adobe RGB but of course will be soft ware rather then hardware calibrated. Egards Paul Sherfield The Missing Horse Consultancy Ltd Telephone : + 44 1442 207626 Mobile: + 44 7899 906385 http://www.missinghorsecons.co.uk http://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.

2 1

Displays Good, Better, Best
by rudy harvey 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

Hello everyone, it's that time again. I have a customer looking to purchase a few displays and would like a current recommendation. Yes we all love the Eizo's but many people will not or cannot pay that price point. We are looking in the $ 400.00 to $600.00 dollar range. Thanks in advance. Rudy Harvey www.thecolorspace.com 661-547-0280

3 2

Displays Good, Better, Best
by rudy harvey 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Hello everyone, it's that time again. I have a customer looking to purchase a few displays and would like a current recommendation. Yes we all love the Eizo's but many people will not or cannot pay that price point. We are looking in the $ 400.00 to $600.00 dollar range. Thanks in advance. Rudy Harvey www.thecolorspace.com 661-547-0280

1 0

Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 9, Issue 56
by Louis Dery 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Hi Rick, iPad 1-2 and iPad 3 are qui the different. For the new iPad (3), I suggest to use sRGB because the gamut od the new iPad (3) use very very close to the standard gamut profile. If you convert to prior "iPad RGB" color (specially blue) won’t be accurate. You can take a look at the samples I’ve published on my web site about the color issue of iPad 1-2. (www.couleur911.com) So, for now, the best guest for new iPad (3), is sRGB. Hope this help! Louis Le 2012-03-31 à 13:09, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com a écrit : > On Mar 30, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Rick Gordon wrote: > >> I am currently in the finishing stages of a new fixed-layout image-heavy ebook for iBooks. I have an first-generation iPad, and on that, I'm considering final conversion of images (currently sRGB) to iPad.icc<http://bit.ly/xEI6nH>. But I'm wondering if I may create more problems when viewing on a New iPad (iPad 3). >> >> Do you have any solid info or well-educated guesses as to this, and to iBooks's handling of embedded profiles? >> >> Thanks. >> -- >> ___________________________________________________ >> >> RICK GORDON >> EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING

2 1

Re: Comparing color performance on Displays
by Dan Wilson 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

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 <wyseconsul(a)mac.com> > To: ColorSync User List List <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Comparing color performance on Displays > Message-ID: <ED78CC1D-9A8F-4803-9C7A-3759FA36CFE8(a)mac.com> > 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

1 0

Re: Comparing color performance on Displays
by Dan Gillespie 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

Thank you, Mike. I could't have said it better myself. I stand behind my feeling and statement that the achieved numbers were quite good. The bottom line, and what Tod's question was originally about, was what is the best way to do these comparisons (color verifications) on a display - because most people already know how to do this on their proofing systems. So, I think it was a great question and one that many people are (or should be) asking themselves as they consider, or move towards, soft-proofing workflows. The new i1Profiler software was well thought out this way, works really well, and is my preferred solution for calibrating displays. Dan On Mar 31, 2012, at 3:00 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:44:41 -0700 > From: Mike Strickler <info(a)mspgraphics.com> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: Comparing color performance on Displays (Kamil Tresnak) > Message-ID: <6CBC2F3B-F13E-42FE-A3A9-5DE5DB41D7C7(a)mspgraphics.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I haven't seen the blog in question, but your characterization of 1.05/3.10 as "middle class" for a proofing system is not correct, as anyone who installs these systems knows (and Dan is among this group). In fact, in general, only systems that have some sort of iterative "tuning" of output profiles (e.g., GMG, ORIS, XF can do better than this immediately after calibration, and even then the improvement is vanishingly slight and the ultra-low numbers rise very quickly as the printer drifts in regular use. > > Mike > >> >> Message: 12 >> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:09:48 +0200 >> From: Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak(a)centrum.cz> >> To: colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> >> Subject: Re: Comparing color performance on Displays >> Message-ID: <20120331190948.91E8A082(a)centrum.cz> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> >> Dan: >> >> Maybe i get you wrong, but number you are posted are "good middle class" rather than best on the planet, particulary if we are talking about "proofing systems" in general .... >> >> Quote form your blog: >> "As you see here the results are VERY impressive with the overall average at 1.05 dE and the maximum at 3.10 dE. In case you know have no reference about dE values - these are as good if not better than any proofing system on the planet!" >> >> Best, >> >> Kamil Tresnak >> >> >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:03:39 -0400 >>> From: Dan Gillespie <dgillespie(a)colorgeek.com> >>> To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com >>> Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 9, Issue 54 >>> Message-ID: <0DC8CEB6-FC3A-4493-B1BE-61D6FF57CF57(a)colorgeek.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>> >>> Tod, >>> >>> You can do this in the new i1Profiler software. You can compare to the 24 ColorChecker values or to printing standards/specifications like GRACoL or Fogra. You can read more in the blog I wrote about it here:http://everydaycolormanagement.blogspot.com/2012/01/eizo-vs-nec-monito…. >>> >>> Hope this helps, >>> >>> Dan Gillespie >>> 717.475.9007 >>> Toll Free 1.877.COL-RMGT >>> dan(a)colormanagement.com >>> www.colormanagement.com | www.colormanagementgroup.com > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:30:09 -0400 > From: Hugo Caceres <hcaceres(a)gwmail.gwu.edu> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Comparing color performance on Displays > Message-ID: > <CAMr1useOkzeAo_e-YhJF9_FxYb5DgqdF2Qwj9HRD1iNJ+h4avA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hello, > > I was curious about how one can find an optimal standard set of colors in > CIELAB to compare the performance of different liquid crystal displays to. > For example, if I wanted to know how far the color reproduction of my > display is to that of a defined set of colors, then I would measure the > CIELAB of the 24 Gretagmacbeth colorchecker on the display and compare it > to the known CIELAB values in the card. This will give me a Delta-E I can > use to determine the difference. The problem is the CIELAB values of the > display have very high luminance as opposed to the CIELAB values on the > colorchecker. Does anyone know a why one can compare the colors of an LCD > to a well-defined base that is reflective? > > Regards, > Tod Canete

1 0