6:50 p.m.
Dear Sir/Mdm,
I´ve just read about the new PSO LWC Improved (ECI) and PSO Uncoated ISO12647(ECI)
profiles that will be replacing the ones based on FOGRA29 and FOGRA28.
My question is about color managed apps and the profile names that should be shown to the
customers to make their life easier:
Having a look at some of these apps, the "old profiles" names are Uncoated
FOGRA29 (ISO 12647-2:2004) and Web Coated FOGRA28 (ISO 12647-2:2004).
Should they be replaced by something similar to UncoatedFOGRA47 and WebCoatedFOGRA45? Or
should we (color management SW developers) use PSO LWC Improved (ECI) and PSO Uncoated
ISO12647(ECI)? Will the users understand their meaning? What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
--------------------------------------------
Alejandra Terron
Color Engineer
R&D Department
Hewlett-Packard Company
Barcelona Site (ICD)
Spain
--------------------------------------------
7:10 p.m.
Jag är på semester 6 juli tom 31 juli.
Tillbaka måndag 3 aug 2009.
Under min semester finns min kollega Karin på plats.
karin(a)digaloo.se
Telefon till Digaloo 08-33 37 01
Trevlig sommar!
8:35 p.m.
Dear Alejandra,
ICC profiles have a 'desc' entry which is used to display the
profile's name in whatever user interface (for example it is "PSO LWC
Improved (ECI)" for the profile file named
"PSO_LWC_Improved_eci.icc"). May I suggest that you simply use that?
Or is there any reason you don't trust it or would not want to rely on
it? What are you using in case of other profiles - possibly make up a
name each time?
Best regards,
Olaf Drümmer
On 20 Jul 2009, at 18:50, Terron, Alejandra wrote:
Dear Sir/Mdm,
I´ve just read about the new PSO LWC Improved (ECI) and PSO Uncoated
ISO12647(ECI) profiles that will be replacing the ones based on
FOGRA29 and FOGRA28.
My question is about color managed apps and the profile names that
should be shown to the customers to make their life easier:
Having a look at some of these apps, the "old profiles" names are
Uncoated FOGRA29 (ISO 12647-2:2004) and Web Coated FOGRA28 (ISO
12647-2:2004).
Should they be replaced by something similar to UncoatedFOGRA47 and
WebCoatedFOGRA45? Or should we (color management SW developers) use
PSO LWC Improved (ECI) and PSO Uncoated ISO12647(ECI)? Will the
users understand their meaning? What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
--------------------------------------------
Alejandra Terron
Color Engineer
R&D Department
Hewlett-Packard Company
Barcelona Site (ICD)
Spain
--------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
--
Olaf Druemmer | Managing Director | callas software GmbH |
Schoenhauser Allee 6/7 | 10119 Berlin
Tel +49.30.4439031-0 | Fax +49.30.4416402 | o.druemmer(a)callassoftware.com
| www.callassoftware.com
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 59615 | Geschäftsführung: Olaf
Drümmer, Ulrich Frotscher
8:50 p.m.
Jag är på semester 6 juli tom 31 juli.
Tillbaka måndag 3 aug 2009.
Under min semester finns min kollega Karin på plats.
karin(a)digaloo.se
Telefon till Digaloo 08-33 37 01
Trevlig sommar!
4:56 p.m.
Hello Alejandra,
It is possible, that differnt organizations or vendors calculate
profiles from the same characterization-data like e.g. FOGRA29 or FOGRA47.
Currently neither ISO nor ICC have published naming conventions for
characterization-data and ICC-profiles. So both organizations or
vendors publishing characterization-data or profiles are free to choose
names, which they prefer.
The profiles, you are mentioning: "Uncoated FOGRA29 (ISO 12647-2:2004)
and Web Coated FOGRA28 (ISO 12647-2:2004)"
are delivered by Adobe.
The internal naming conventions of Adobe include a reference to the
characterization-data, they have calculated from. This makes it easy for
the user to understand the connection between characterization-data and
ICC-profile.
Currently, it is not clear, if and when Adobe will make profile for
FOGRA45 to FOGRA47 available.
If You want to integrate profiles based on FOGRA45 to FOGRA47 into your
products, the ECI - profiles are a good choice, but it would be also
possible, that you calculate your own profiles and name them e.g.
Uncoated_FOGRA47_hp.icc
Calculating own profiles makes only sense, if you are unsatisfied with
the gamutmapping or black generation from free available standard
profiles and if you know how to make it better.
best regards
Jan-Peter
Terron, Alejandra wrote:
Dear Sir/Mdm,
I´ve just read about the new PSO LWC Improved (ECI) and PSO Uncoated ISO12647(ECI)
profiles that will be replacing the ones based on FOGRA29 and FOGRA28.
My question is about color managed apps and the profile names that should be shown to the
customers to make their life easier:
Having a look at some of these apps, the "old profiles" names are Uncoated
FOGRA29 (ISO 12647-2:2004) and Web Coated FOGRA28 (ISO 12647-2:2004).
Should they be replaced by something similar to UncoatedFOGRA47 and WebCoatedFOGRA45? Or
should we (color management SW developers) use PSO LWC Improved (ECI) and PSO Uncoated
ISO12647(ECI)? Will the users understand their meaning? What do you think?
Thanks in advance,
--------------------------------------------
Alejandra Terron
Color Engineer
R&D Department
Hewlett-Packard Company
Barcelona Site (ICD)
Spain
--------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ECI-EN mailing list
ECI-EN(a)lists.callassoftware.com
http://lists.callassoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/eci-en
--
*********** Neue Adresse / new adress ************
homann colormanagement ------ fon/fax +49 30 611 075 18
Jan-Peter Homann ------------- mobile +49 171 54 70 358
Christinenstr. 21 ------ http://www.colormanagement.de
10119 Berlin -------- mailto:homann@colormanagement.de
*********** Neue Adresse / new adress ************
5405
days inactive
5406
days old
eci-en@lists.callassoftware.com
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Bosse, Thonander -
Jan-Peter Homann -
Olaf Drümmer -
Terron, Alejandra