ferdinand_paris wrote: > Thanks again for advice. A few more questions if I may. > > (i) I'm hoping to produce a 1440 curve for EpEnhMatte, since the 2880 > curve seems to use too much ink for this paper. Is there any point in > trying to base a 1440 curve on an attempt to simulate a Cone-produced > 2880 curve, either by using ACV files, or by entering points? That > is, will such 2880 curves inherently make the ink limits too low for > 1440? Would I be better simply to try and create a 2880 curve and > lower the limits, based on the ink separation page? > > Perhaps another way of asking this question is whether the individual > curves that you enter for each ink are absolute or relative curves? > Hope this makes sense. You just need to use lower ink limits with 2880dpi, probably in the region of 35-60% lower. I'm still not clear why you have rejected the "take existing curve for similar paper/adjust ink limit at print time (if necessary)/make ICC for new paper" method that Roy suggested. It sounds a lot simpler. > (i) Are there any software or Excel tricks for taking two columns of > data and producing the "xx.xxx;yy.yyy" pair that are required for > entering points in QTR? And conversely, i.e. for taking the pairs and > producing columns in a spreadsheet? > I just copied & pasted straight from Carl's email and all the points appeared correctly. The only problems was that their appear to be more points than boxes available so I guess you'll have to stick to editing the text file if you want that number of points. Howard
Message
Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Comparing Cone's K7 curves with those produced by QTR curve creation tool.
2008-05-07 by Howard Shaw
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.