August 2012 - colorsync-users

Proposal of a new Q&A site about color
by Mauro Boscarol 26 Aug '12

26 Aug '12

Hi all. A new Q&A site about color has been proposed. For those who want to support the proposal, that is the site: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/43099/color-science Thank you. Mauro Boscarol

1 0

Re: PDF, spot colors,RIPs, and ink jet printers
by Dan Reid 24 Aug '12

24 Aug '12

Hi Steve, I guess the real question would be what version of PDF are you preflighting? There are several PDFx flavors that allow transparencies and spot colors. You should be preflighting files against what the RIP can handle. Some are Adobe PDF engines these days other are still interpreters. Best to test which PDFx files process the best with the RIP or ask the RIP vendor which PDFx files are supported. Steer clear of any RIP manufacturer that says they won’t support PDFs reliably and only support EPS. - Dan On Aug 24, 2012, at 12:00 PM, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > From: Steve Miller <SLMiller(a)norwood.com> > Date: August 24, 2012 6:27:50 AM MST > To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: PDF, spot colors,RIPs, and ink jet printers > > > I've been doing some research with PDF files and RIPs. We want to have a > PDF only workflow and one RIP vender is saying we should not use PDF > files. Instead, they recommend .eps, .tif or .jpg. > Here's a reply from one RIP vender. > > "The pdf print engine is implemented as a base feature in the" (enter any > vender name here) " RIP programs. It has advanced handling of pdf and pdfx > file formats. It was necessary for" (enter any vender name here) "to add > this feature due to Adobe's constant alteration of the pdf encoding > process and handling of transparencies, spot color handling in gradients, > and compression methods. There is a basic flaw in the conversion of spot > color in the pdf format to the rastered ink dots of an inkjet printer. > This is a problem that all RIPs have.. It is a problem inherent in the pdf > format being rendered into the inkjet dot format. The repeat printability > of colors suffers in this format. While Adobe also alters the EPS format, > color consistency from print to print is stable." > > Is this a true statement? > > -- > Steve Miller > Color Management Specialist > > "Quality Begins Here" > > BIC Advertising & Promotional Products > 1000 3rd Ave. SW > Sleepy Eye, MN 56085 > > Tel.: (1) 507 794 8203 > E-mail: slmiller(a)norwood.com > www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com -- Dan Reid RPimaging, INC Color Communication Experts http://www.rpimaging.com | dreid(a)rpimaging.com Toll Free: (866) RGB-CMYK Local: (520) 323-5855 ext. 103 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, print, retain, use, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy all copies of the original message (including any attachments.

1 0

Re: PDF, spot colors,RIPs, and ink jet printers
by Volner, Jesse M. 24 Aug '12

24 Aug '12

In testing a few RIPs before making a purchase, we found any RIP with the Adobe PDF Print Engine handled PDF's great. No issues with transparency or spot colors. Spot colors were limited by ink/media gamut. We have a PDF/X3 workflow with GRACoL as the output intent, and all of our devices produce an acceptable "match". RIPs that used 3rd party interpreters (ghost rip, jaws, etc) showed all sorts of errors and artifacts. Stitching, bocks around text, overprint errors, etc. Just my .02¢ jesse

1 0

Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 9, Issue 132
by Steve Kale 21 Aug '12

21 Aug '12

Or more succinctly, if the W-LED backlight only now achieves what was possible before (with CCFL) what incremental benefit does the new back-light provide the user? Why should I care about a great leap forward for W-LED? On 21 Aug 2012, at 20:00, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > > From: "J.Raimar Kuhnen-Burger" <kuhnen(a)jrkuhnen.de> > Subject: Re: Eizo CG276 versus CG275W (Steve Kale) > Date: 20 August 2012 22:06:11 GMT+01:00 > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > > > Bascically, the new unit uses a White-LED backlight instead of CCFL and a > more advanced IPS derivative with higher transmission (LG´s new LM270WQ3 > AH-IPS Panel). According to LG (and EIZO), this new W-LED Backlight > achieves the same Gamut as the WCG-CCFL of the LM270WQ2. That´s a great > leap forwards for W-LED as up to today, W-LED typically only reaches sRGB > (or even less) and the Adobe RGB gamut was only possible with WCG-CCFL or > RGB-LED. > > Raimar > > > From: Mark Stegman <mark.stegman(a)gmail.com> > > Raina's et al, > > Sorry but I'm glazing over with acronym and model number overload. Is there a 'succinct' article or table that breaks down ALL of the differences, advantages and disadvantages of the the currently available technologies and options for displays. I need something to present to students that are still unconvinced of the 'ROI' on a good 'window' to their images. It always amazes me how much they will spend on a camera and then use a cheap monitor for viewing. > > Mark >

1 0

Re: Eizo CG276 versus CG275W (Steve Kale)
by J.Raimar Kuhnen-Burger 21 Aug '12

21 Aug '12

Bascically, the new unit uses a White-LED backlight instead of CCFL and a more advanced IPS derivative with higher transmission (LG´s new LM270WQ3 AH-IPS Panel). According to LG (and EIZO), this new W-LED Backlight achieves the same Gamut as the WCG-CCFL of the LM270WQ2. That´s a great leap forwards for W-LED as up to today, W-LED typically only reaches sRGB (or even less) and the Adobe RGB gamut was only possible with WCG-CCFL or RGB-LED. Raimar Am 20.08.12 21:00 schrieb "colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com" unter <colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com>: >Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://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. Eizo CG276 versus CG275W (Steve Kale) >_______________________________________________ >Colorsync-users mailing list >Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com >https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users

2 1

Eizo CG276 versus CG275W
by Steve Kale 20 Aug '12

20 Aug '12

Can anyone explain the differences (other than HDMI port)? Advantages of the newer model?

2 3

Fwd: Monitor calibration/profiling for video applications
by Steve Kale 17 Aug '12

17 Aug '12

> My take on this is that the video guys 'hard-tune' devices to a specific primary/gamma set (to use terms loosely) whereas the ICC approach has a much higher degree of flexibility in that each device is profiled and each piece of media carries with it a profile that, in effect, contains expectations as to how that content should look. Until very recently the video guys didn't even have a standard for the display end of things - the electro-optical transfer function or EOTF - even though they have had for some time various standards for the recording side of things (OETF) which of course matter much less as the look of video is more often than not processed "for effect" (subtle or strong). Until ITU-R BT.1886 there wasn't a standard for end-user display. It would seem much more sensible to me for the video industry to move to an ICC-profile type setup where recording devices are profiled (perhaps less important because of post processing), displays are profiled and each video (however processed for effect) comes with a profile that aids a CMM to deliver the correct look on any display. > > Is this a fair view of the world? (says someone who has just profiled his computer monitor with i1Profiler while reading Poynton's "Digital Video and HD" and about to recalibrate my plasma display with HCFR) > > > > >> From: Dennis Dunbar <dennis(a)dunbardigital.com> >> Subject: Monitor calibration/profiling for video applications >> Date: 14 August 2012 21:03:44 GMT+01:00 >> To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com >> >> >> Over the last year or so I've been focusing on learning more and more about working on the video side of the industry (after 20 years as a high end retoucher) and have noticed their approach to color management is markedly different than the stills/print side I've worked in for so many years. >> >> It seems on the video side they rely much more on LUTs instead of ICC profiles and argue that their approach delivers a consistency and accuracy un-achievable through the ICC approach. Here are a couple of links to software products that seem to be adopting this approach: >> >> http://studio.spectracal.com/calmanstudio.html >> >> http://www.lightillusion.com/lightspace.html >> >> In the case of Lightillusion's Lightspace product I had a brief exchange with the head guy on their forums in which he insisted their approach was vastly superior to the ICC approach I am more familiar with, yet he failed to offer any specifics that really explained why to me. >> >> Is anyone else familiar with the different approaches to color management? And if so could you help clear up the fog for me? (Do they really have something there, or are they just blowing smoke?) >> >> Thanks! >> >> Dennis Dunbar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Graeme Gill <graeme2(a)argyllcms.com> >> Subject: Re: Monitor calibration/profiling for video applications >> Date: 16 August 2012 03:30:55 GMT+01:00 >> To: ColorSync <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> >> Reply-To: graeme(a)argyllcms.com >> >> >> Dennis Dunbar wrote: >>> Is anyone else familiar with the different approaches to color management? And if so could you help >>> clear up the fog for me? (Do they really have something there, or are they just blowing smoke?) >> >> Mostly blowing smoke :-) Typically Video and Film are aiming at a very >> specific sub set of general color management: Emulation of a particular >> standard. The print equivalent is side by side proofing. So most >> of the talk is about calibration (ie. making a display device >> behave in a specified way). ICC profiling is more general and >> flexible, and provides a mechanism for actually achieving the color >> management sub set desired by video or film. >> >> Another key difference between Video/Film and general color management >> is the mechanics used to transform color. Computer systems can use >> software, which is very flexible but not necessarily real time. >> Video/Film often have either very simple hardware controls (ie. >> "brightness" and "contrast" knobs. "RGBCMY" primary controls that don't >> work so well, per channel curves etc.) or the high end actually has >> hardware capable of per channel, matrix and 3D cLUT transforms (ie. >> all the machinery ICC profiles use). What's loaded into the 3D cLUT is >> the equivalent of a device link. (Note though that real time computer >> color CMM's can be implemented using GPU's.) >> >> Graeme Gill. >> >> >> >> >> From: THOMAS A LIANZA <tlianza(a)xrite.com> >> Subject: Re: Monitor calibration/profiling for video applications >> Date: 16 August 2012 12:07:27 GMT+01:00 >> To: graeme(a)argyllcms.com, ColorSync <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> >> >> >> Hi to all, >> >> Graeme's comments, as usual, are spot on. I work with the ICC and have >> worked with the Academy on issues of color management, so I think that I can >> speak with experience in both camps. The greatest differences between the >> film workflows and graphic arts workflows fall in areas of white point >> assumptions and total system dynamic range. Another area that is also >> common is the need to maintain a subjective "look and feel" across multiple >> media. >> >> The largest population of users of serious ICC technology are "by the >> numbers" guys. A great deal of effort is spent making output devices behave >> in a more or less standard manner with definitions of primary, secondary >> colors and tone response curves. The device links that Graeme refers to are >> tables that resolve predicted color differences between device and an >> assumed standard input in device coordinates. This is exactly the same as >> the technology described by the troll you spoke with. >> >> The motion picture industry tends to be driven by perceptual intent. >> Certainly, in video situations, real time editing is done and the ASC >> (cinematographers) have a standard set of controls that are simple, but >> defined to convey the intent of the director or cinematographer to the next >> stage of production. >> >>> From a display calibration standpoint, there are two very important factors >> in video and mp applications that generally don't exist in ICC applications. >> First there are two distinct standards that are generally used in these >> applications: Rec. 709 and DCI-P3. These are two prevailing output >> assumptions. Displays used in video applications often use a Serial Data >> Interface (SDI) which guarantees that each display receives exactly the same >> data. This means that these displays must contain hardware calibration >> capabilities inside the display. This same requirement is developing for >> video walls and ON-set applications where multiple folks have to see the >> same image, but are not physical proximity. This means that the calibration >> hardware transform is built into the display. Many high end displays have >> this capability and you will soon see it in low cost LCD displays as well. >> These transform engines in the display generally are 14+bits and use either >> table lut or lut-matrix architectures to transform the native display >> primaries to the required working space requirements. These are exactly >> analogous to the Device Link that Graeme refers to. >> >> Modern display calibration is far more common between video, motion picture >> and graphic arts than ever before. The physical difference between displays >> is driven more by the physics of the display than any color management >> style. The motion picture applications push towards very wide dynamic range >> and the graphic arts applications push towards lower contrast ratios. This >> difference is aimed primarily at the differences in destination media. >> >> There certainly is a lot of hubris in the Video and Motion Picture camp, but >> in the end, the approaches to get to the final result are far more common >> than different. >> >> Regards, >> Tom Lianza > > >

3 2

Re: Monitor calibration/profiling for video applications
by Dennis Dunbar 16 Aug '12

16 Aug '12

Thanks for the info Tom & Graeme. From the research I did I read a fair amount about the Rec. 709 standard and saw that it seems really close to sRGB. I was surprised when the guy behind LightIllusion claimed it was a much higher standard than used in the stills industry. From there most of what he was saying seemed to rely on buzz words and claims of superiority while providing very little in the way of specifics. This past Spring I took a class in high end compositing using After Effects. The teacher was a senior compositor at one of the top VFX shops in the LA area and again I was surprised at the haphazard way color management is used in the motion side of our industry. It really seems that the implementation of color management is about 10 years behind the stills side and while I recognize there are a lot of complicating factors it still seemed shocking that it's so poorly implemented. As I learn more about the motion side these questions keep coming up and it's good to know this list can be a resource for getting some of them figured out. Thanks! Dennis Dunbar Blog: http://www.dunbardigital.com/blog/blog.php Website: http://www.dunbardigital.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/DennisDunbar

2 1

Monitor calibration/profiling for video applications
by Dennis Dunbar 16 Aug '12

16 Aug '12

Over the last year or so I've been focusing on learning more and more about working on the video side of the industry (after 20 years as a high end retoucher) and have noticed their approach to color management is markedly different than the stills/print side I've worked in for so many years. It seems on the video side they rely much more on LUTs instead of ICC profiles and argue that their approach delivers a consistency and accuracy un-achievable through the ICC approach. Here are a couple of links to software products that seem to be adopting this approach: http://studio.spectracal.com/calmanstudio.html http://www.lightillusion.com/lightspace.html In the case of Lightillusion's Lightspace product I had a brief exchange with the head guy on their forums in which he insisted their approach was vastly superior to the ICC approach I am more familiar with, yet he failed to offer any specifics that really explained why to me. Is anyone else familiar with the different approaches to color management? And if so could you help clear up the fog for me? (Do they really have something there, or are they just blowing smoke?) Thanks! Dennis Dunbar

4 4

Re: Issues with v4 profiles that include CXF Data
by Alexey Gribunin 16 Aug '12

16 Aug '12

Hello Marc! > So far I guess the moral of the story is "Don't build v4 ICC Profiles with .cxf data". >Can anyone tell me different? Don't build v4 ICC profiles at all:))) Actually, I don't see any reason to use v4 for printer profiling... Best regards, Alexey Gribunin, UNIT Color Technologies, Moscow, Russia.

1 0