Digital BW, The Print

Phil,

I just put a screen grab of the IJC linearization window up on my 
filesharing website.  This image (IJC.jpg) shows the target and 
measured density values used to linearize the cool EAM profile and the 
curves illustrate the "fit" to the AIM target values.  Hope this is 
helpful to you.  As I noted the densitometer I used does not conform to 
ANSI standards and was only calibrated against a Kodak Q-13 target for 
the nominal AIM values.  You can view/download the info here:
http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html

Carl
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 08:40  PM, Phil Rose wrote:
> Yes, I agree with all that.  But since I only have the OPM part of
> the "system" (thus far), I merely wanted to use densitometry for
> determining (even semiquantitatively) how  large are the
> differences between _my_ two grayscales: one from a profile
> used in OPM 1.02 versus another from same profile used
> with a different OPM version. That tries to answer a basic
> question that was raised about possible version-to-version
> effects. Even with an uncalibrated densitometer (the_same_
> uncalibrated unit), it should be possible to determine whether or
> not there are significant differences (especially changes in the
> curve shape.)  Agree?
>
> Now that I've just made those measurements, I am able to verify
> what
> my eyes had been telling me: the grayscale density curve  from
> OPM
> 1.02b5 has a rather pronounced inflection near midscale--quite
> different from the smooth, monotonically increasing density
> curve from OPM 1.02. Also, 1.02b5 gives  higher densities overall
> (especially near midscale); even a bit higher at 100% black, too.
> That's all using Carl's "cool" EAM_MK linearized profile.
>
> Any comparison of my densitometric curve with data from Carl's
> also-uncalibrated densitomer would only be useful to verify that
> I'm able to obtain a similar curve shape when using the same
> profile and OPM version as he used. The only reason to even
> raise that question is that my 2200 had that streaking "problem"
> while his did not.
>
> Phil