[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: EZcolor

The accuracy of the EZColor profiles is really quite good, for a $300
program. However I would never put it against a high-level profiling
program. Most average type of subject matter prints very well using EZColor
profiles. Where it falls down is some "graduated" tone situations, where a
"banding" (tonal compression) becomes evident. Also, some watercolor tones I
have found, don't want to reproduce correctly. 

Most of these inaccuracies are due to the limited number of patches that
EZColor employes in their printed target (351). The IT8 target has only 264
color patches. The more patches you sample and compare, the more accurate
your profile will be. There is just no getting around this!

The method of using a scanner to compare the IT8 target with the printed
profile is very novel, simple and quick. The profiles generated this way are
surprisingly good. Again, the biggest weakness is the limited number of
patches, rather than the use of the scanner to read the patches.

John Nollendorfs
JN photography
Lincoln, NE

> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:55:33 -0700
> From: David Spellman <david@photopro.com>
> Subject: Re: EZcolor
> >
> > 8) The result is a printer profile that should color correct the
> > ink/paper/driver setting print to the IT8. Theoretically, the scanner
should now be
> > eliminated as a variable. It was just needed to acquire the data to work
>     I'd really like to know how accurate this whole method is.
>     Traditionally, printer profiles have been produced with software
coupled to a fairly
> accurate patch reader, and the *minimum recommended instrument*, the 3
delta Colortron
> at about $850 was considered a significantly less accurate instrument than
the X-Rite
> Color Swatchbook, at 1 delta of color accuracy and about $1300. Most patch
reading for
> professional quality is done with strip readers ranging from the X-Rite
DTP-41 to
> Macbeth/Gertrag instruments costing upwards of $10K.
>     I wonder how close to that accuracy a much less expensive flatbed
scanner will come?
> Most profiling programs suggest using as many patches as possible in the
printer target
> file, with recommended for Heidelberg/Linocolor's PrintOpen ICC software
ranging from a
> minimum of 230 patches to over 800 patches.
>     Anyone ever done a comparison on profiles done with this software and
a scanner as
> compared to the higher-end profiling methods?
>     david

**   Tips on Refilling, Refill Kits, Archival Ink, Cartridges, Paper **
**   Order On-Line  http://www.missupply.com  Save $$$$     **
**   MIS ASSOCIATES, INC   800-445-8296   Kits Ship Free!   **

[Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Scanner]     [Gimp]     [Gimp] Users

Powered by Linux