Digital BW, The Print

Martin,

Just a few comments on the Spectrocam. It does have a high rate of
communication errors when used in the scanning mode. That is one of the
reasons that I made the indexer out of a plotter. When used to make
individual measurements it works wonderfully. The guys at Spectrostar tell
me there is a new version of the software coming that has a superior
communications driver. That will improve the scanning mode, but won't affect
the way I use it.

I beleive that my approach to indexing can be applied to the ColorMouse as
well. There are a few people with a ColorMouse that I will be working with
to see if it can be done.

You may want to consider the Spectrocam's other features before you dismiss
it. It can make emissive measurements as well as reflected measurements
which means you can measure the color temperature of light sources and even
your monitors white point.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:55 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Culbertson's RGB method A-OK


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., grdglass@a... wrote:
> > > I don't think Profiler Pro works with a scanner, but I could be
> wrong.
> >
> > Yup, in the latest release it does. Basically they just built
> Profiler RGB capability into it. I guess it was easy to do and they
> > thought users might want to make scanner based profiles if in a
> hurry. However you can do a smaller patch chart spectro
> > based profile pretty quickly that will still be better.
> > I tested it again with the scanner, it does work, but not as well.
> It did make a preview profile that allowed me to build sep
> > curves relatively quickly though, and show me a reasonable
> representation of it on my monitor. The curves just need a
> > little trial and error tweaking. Certainly better to work with than
> not having it.
> > I'm not quite sure whether to recommend it or not. I've never
> gotten good Profiler RGB profiles from this scanner, possibly
> > one that works well for color with this software might also be
> better for this.
> > Another more economical version might be to get something like the
> ColorMouse, or any other less expensive single patch
> > reader that Profiler Pro supports, and just make profiles from the
> 127 patch chart. I made a quick one the other day and was
> > suprised how good it was. 127 patches wouldn't be quite so daunting
> as 729 patches by hand.
> > You may also be able to find very good monitor calibration software
> for the same device to furthur justify the purchase...
> > ...to whomever...
> > Tyler
>
> Tyler,
>
> Thanks for giving it a try again. Might be a way to get started in
> this direction and add the spectrophotometer later. The process would
> be very dependent on the individual scanner's color accuracy.
>
> The Colormouse approach cuts about $700 off the cost over the
> Spectrocam. Based on your earlier post on the Spectrocam and a
> statement on the Color Vision site that the Spectrocam "has a
> significantly higher error rate in its readings" compared to the
> Colormouse and the X-Rite Digital Swatchbook, I am sort of inclined
> to pass on the Spectrocam.
>
> Any thoughts or opinons on the Colormouse or Digital Swatch book
> (which is the same price as the Spectrocam.)
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>