| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
<x-flowed>Maybe its useful (see below), if you know what you are doing. For example, suppose you have a presumed wide gamut recording media, such as an Ektaflex slide. You wish to print the image on that slide. (instead of view it on a slide projector, or even scan it and view it on your monitor). Now you have Chromix ColorThink, and you are able to develop 3D gamut shapes of a multitude of profiles, some of your scanner, some of your monitor, some of your working spaces, and some of your various assorted papers, which have profiles. Ideally what you would like to do (or at least I would like to do) is to determine how much of the image on that slide can slip through all the hoops of the various processes I am going to use, and come out the other end (of the device/workflow tunnel) on paper. As a starting imponderable, I don't know the gamut latitude of my image. ! (yes I have IT8 targets of Ektaflex, but I know nothing really about my slide) Although I really don't have Steve's ColorThink (yet), I have yet to understand how this is going to tell me (exactly) where the pinch points are in my workflow, or even give me specific directions as to how to tweak devices, workspaces - to ream out everything so that Ektaflex's "Gamut Potential" becomes realized - - on paper. If Steve's software could "contrast and compare" multiple gamut spaces in such a way that "voids", "gaps", "gamut omissions", or "dropped data" are depicted, either graphically or with nice diagnostics, actions might be taken by the user to "change the entire system", from slide to paper. Now that might be progress. Working with 3D globs is difficult visually. If you juxtaposition multiple globs onto a single "L" axis you have "gibberish". "Flying around" a single glob makes for nice sightseeing, but comes up short on answers. Easier with multiple 2D slices, at various L values. But at the end of even this you really have not much more than fatigue - - unless there was a structured analysis of your system/intentions and implications. Correct me if I am wrong. But I don't think we are there yet with either our thinking (about this issue) or software. And, maybe we don't ever have to get that sophisticated until someone invents both ink and paper that can theoretically hold the "gamut potential" of the best recording media. We have a brilliant, saturated "color basket" in the slide, and are attempting to place it on (relatively speaking) a blotter paper. Perhaps 60 percent of the "gamut potential" of the slide is lost. >At 1:37 PM -0400 10/28/00, Dan Culbertson wrote: >>Also there is a nice commericial package called Chromix ColorThink from >>Steve Upton at http://www.chromix.com which has a very nice gamut viewer >>(among many other profile tools). Mac only so far though Steve is >>entertaining the idea of a Windows version. Email him if you would buy a >>Windows version since he needs to know if it is something worth doing. >From: bfraser@amer.net (Bruce Fraser) >To amplify on what Dan said... > >Judging gamuts from 2D plots can be quite misleading. Gamuts are >really quite complex 3D shapes: 2D plots are useful as visualization >aids, but they're limited to a single luminance level. You can >produce many equally valid 2D plots that will give you different >answers. > >Steve's tool lets you compare 3D gamuts in 3D, which is much more useful. > >Bruce >-- >bruce@pixelboyz.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. </x-flowed>
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users
|