|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
In a message dated 4/17/02 12:40:38 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: >The point is, this is not an a software thing, it's a scanner-based >profiling thing (Tobie, your thoughts?). Very true, and nowhere more apparent than with ColorVision's software, since it allows you to use the same engine to read a target with both a scanner and a spectro, and therefore shows quite clearly which improvements are caused specificly by using a spectro. The same is true for Monaco's packages, its just not as clearcut, as the bump from scanner based profiling to spectro based profiling is to a different product. In either case metameric variations effect the accuracy of scanner built profiles more, since there is not a single contolled light color in scanners as there is in spectros. So what the scanner sees may be different for one scanner from another; and neither one may match what your eye sees. It's difficult to overcome these >types of issues without a spectrophotometer as some pigmented inks / media >combinations may be subject to metameric effects. >If you are making profiles >for professional applications, I would consider upgrading to a >spectrophotometer- based solution. At the amateur level, scanner-based >profiling and certain pigmented inks can be difficult to work with. Even a spectro can have difficulties with the worst of the metameric pigment inks, but its a vast improvement over scanner profiles for these problem situations. C. David Tobie Design Cooperative CDTobie@designcoop.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.