linerization / icc creation
2006-12-09 by esharamaki
Yahoo Groups archive
Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC
Thread
2006-12-09 by esharamaki
Can someone explain to me the difference between linerization vs. printing with an icc? I have printfixpro that I've been using for color prints and I'd like to use Paul Roark's method of creating icc for B&W but I'm a little confused. Do I linerize before creating the ICC or does the ICC take care of that? Thanks, Earl
2006-12-09 by Steve Kale
If you are using a RIP that allows you to linearise its output then you would linearise before profiling. Linearising simply means getting output that shows a linear (straight line) progression from (in the simple case of B&W) ink black to paper white, usually as measured by Lab¹s L*. When you do an ICC profile you observe a number of samples along that (hopefully straight) line...sampling every output (response) to every input (stimulus) would be too hard (particularly in a colour setup). When the colour management module comes across a pixel which falls between observations in the profile it must interpolate to get the right value to which the input should be changed to. If the response of the printer between observations is linear then that interpolation which produce a correct result. If you are using, say, the Epson Adv B&W driver it isn¹t possible to linearise the output before profiling it. One way to combat that is to increase the number of stimulus-response observations you use to generate the profile.
From: esharamaki <esharamaki@...> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:18:11 -0000 To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [Digital BW] linerization / icc creation Can someone explain to me the difference between linerization vs. printing with an icc? I have printfixpro that I've been using for color prints and I'd like to use Paul Roark's method of creating icc for B&W but I'm a little confused. Do I linerize before creating the ICC or does the ICC take care of that? Thanks, Earl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]