Digital BW, The Print

dfaprinting wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
><E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
>  
>
>>I can add your parts to the files I already made and wait till 
>>there's consensus that it is worthy for an upload to the B&W 
>>files section. To avoid more confusion it is better to keep 
>>CGATS measurement data out till the first greyscale 
>>measurements are made. I did send Roy the files before I wrote 
>>the message with the idea that an interface for the CMYK or 
>>RGB target measure data (Monaco Profiler format I assumed as 
>>that's what I can make with the SpectroCam and Avantes 
>>software as well) could be made. Roy is away right now so we 
>>have to wait.
>>
>>Ernst
>>    
>>
>
>The CGATS is of course just for the after measurement files that are 
>used to import the data. The only reason that I thought it would be 
>good is that it really is a standard format for the somewhat modern 
>applications. That said, I've never looked at the Monaco file to see 
>if it is easy to read. And I think the "template" data I made can be 
>read by MeasureTool, atleast I'm pretty sure that it can read an IT8 
>style of chart information file. I think MeasureTool can also save 
>measurements as CGATS (at least v5 should).
>
>We can always just drop down to the Lab output file with either tab 
>or comma delimiters. And anyway it goes, it is still one more step 
>forward! And isn't spectrocam supported by Colorport? If so, you 
>should be able to save the CGATS format from there, unless you can 
>make grayscale profiles in the Avantes software (not familiar with it 
>at all).
>  
>
Sorry, but I have written several times that the SpectroCam isn't 
supported by ColorPort. What I have done by uploading the files is very 
much a pro-deo gesture to Eye-One users as I can't use it myself with 
the exception of the QTR target modification which is something separate 
from the ColorPort adaption. The Avantes software of the Spectrocam 
can't make CGATS files either (as far as I know) so for me it wouldn't 
be an advantage to use that format. The Monaco Profiler format is simple 
and easy to make with most  Spectrometers including the SpectroCam.

>A side note, don't be surprised if the next version of Monaco 
>Profiler uses an outboard measuring tool (that looks a lot like 
>Colorport). Seems to make a lot of sense to set the profile software 
>to take a standard file as the input, and use a simple tool for the 
>device connection and measurement. Then they can come out with new 
>devices, and not worry about updating all the routines in the 
>profiling application. Either that or they want to put a dent in the 
>GMB Measuretool income. Why pay GMB $700 when you can get the same 
>thing (for what most people use) for free from Xrite!
>  
>
As I understand it ColorPort already works together with Monaco Profiler 
when both applications are installed on one system. But not having an 
Eye-One and Monaco Profiler this is all quite hypothetical for me. The 
only thing I was interested in was getting a common output file for most 
Spectrometers and get an interface in QTR so one doesn't need to type 
the numbers. If it worked for the 21 step then the next higher numbers 
linearisation target could be added. The partition target (,6,7,8 
channels) may be another step in that process but for selecting the 
partition points one usually can estimate the best patches by eye and 
maybe 10 patch readings are needed at most. In a more automated curve 
creation application it could be handy to have all the patches measured. 
Especially if it takes care of neutrality c.q. an even distribution of 
the hue (sepia etc) along the ramp.

Ernst