Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 1/16/06 3:33:25 PM, koloshor@... writes:


> > You are, of course, comparing a $500 solution that does a very good
> job of making profiles, to ones that range from $1000 to $7000!
> 
> The jury is out on whether or not it "does a very good job of making
> profiles". 
> 
The jury isn't out for Walt, he's tested it, made his determinations, and 
stated them, only to have them refuted on theory by people who haven't even used 
the product; apparently this product is shaking things up a bit...


> In the words of Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary proof". Both the literature in this field and my own
> personal experience designing LED spectors shows 6 colors is not
> enough to do "a very good job".
> 
For measuring spikey emissive sources like fluorescent proofing lights, more 
bands are better. But for measuring broad, smoothly formed reflective spectra 
like printed inks, six bands seems to do an excellent job, as the L*a*b* 
values from the Datacolor 1005 show in testing. Datacolor is a major player in the 
spectro market, developing a number of laboratory grade spectros, and leading 
software for, among other areas, the textile industry. If you would like to 
disagree with their testing, I would recommend that you get a 1005 yourself, and 
ideally a lab spectro to use as a standard, and measure BCRA tiles, or actual 
print samples, with both (and other end user patch readers for comparison if 
you like) and see what you think of the results. I'm certainly not saying the 
1005 will prove better, only that it proves quite sufficient for the task at 
hand: L*a*b* values for building ICC profiles.

The more typical end user test of comparing the device to one competing 
product, and saying "it must be wrong because the results are not identical" is not 
effective, as neither of those units is identical to the lab standard either, 
and its simply not fair to define the competition as "right", thus defining 
the device in question as "wrong".

More to the point for end users is to compare prints made through PrintFIX 
PRO profiles to ones made through Pulse, EyeOne, or more costly GMB and X-Rite 
products. Many users simply will not see enough difference to justify spending 
a lot more money. Splitting Delta-Es and objecting on theory won't change 
that; this is not about who's best, in some theoretical sense, its about which 
product's cost, ease of use, and results meet the needs of various groups of 
users. Given the quality of the results, the extreme ease of use, and the very low 
price, all the theory in the world won't keep PrintFIX PRO from being a good 
choice for a lot of users; and coupled with PrintFIX PLUS, offer spectro-grade 
profiles to a   much larger group, who do not own any measurement hardware at 
all.

But that doesn't stop one from wondering why some people "doth protest too 
much?"

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]