Digital BW, The Print

David,
You sure as hell make me want one! I would like a Eye One but I can't
afford one at the moment. I do have a couple of questions though,
please forgive if these have already been answered.
1.  How suitable is the Printfix pro for making gray profiles, such as
I might need using QTR?
2. Is there a software utility to output a txt lab file for use in
another profile program such as Monaco Profiler?

Thanks,
Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@a... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 1/16/06 3:33:25 PM, koloshor@y... 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@c...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>