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@centrum.cz> To: colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Subject: Re: Comparing color performance on Displays Message-ID: <20120331190948.91E8A082@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@colorgeek.com> To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 9, Issue 54 Message-ID: <0DC8CEB6-FC3A-4493-B1BE-61D6FF57CF57@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-monitor-cali....

Hope this helps,

Dan Gillespie 717.475.9007 Toll Free 1.877.COL-RMGT dan@colormanagement.com www.colormanagement.com | www.colormanagementgroup.com