Sehr geehrter Kunde - Geschäftspartner,
vielen Dank für Ihre e-mail.
Unser Geschäft bleibt vom 28.07. bis 03.08.2003
wegen Betriebsferien geschlossen.
Wir bitten Sie diesen Termin einzuplanen.
Ihre e-mail wurde zugestellt.
Copy Schwob GbR Fulda
Sehr geehrter Kunde - Geschäftspartner,
vielen Dank für Ihre e-mail.
Unser Geschäft bleibt vom 28.07. bis 03.08.2003
wegen Betriebsferien geschlossen.
Wir bitten Sie diesen Termin einzuplanen.
Ihre e-mail wurde zugestellt.
Copy Schwob GbR Fulda
Liebe Liste,
hat jemand Erfahrung mit dem PNG-Format?
Ich möchte ein CMYK mittels PNG transportieren und den K-Kanal im
Alphakanal "verstecken". Wenn ich jedoch ein 3kanaliges Bild um den
Alphakanal erweitere und ihn als png abspeichere, ist beim nächsten
Öffnen nicht mehr drin :-(
Servus aus München
Andreas Kraushaar
Liebe ECI-Comunity,
ich suche Information darüber, ob es eine allgemein anerkannte Art und Weise
dafür gibt, wie die Weißhomogenität, bzw. Farbhomogenität von Bildschirmen
objektiv bewertet werden kann.
Hier und da wird mit einer Delta E Angabe nach CIE Lab gearbeitet. Das hört
sich ja ganz gut an, aber mir scheint jedoch die Bezugsgröße (z.B.
Bildschirmmitte-Bildschirmecke, Istwert-Sollwert, ...), die Anzahl der
Messflächen (3x3 oder 5x5 Flächen) und die Größe der Messflächen
uneinheitlich zu sein.
Auch habe ich gehört das mitunter die Luminanz außen vor gelassen wird und
sozusagen ein Delta E(ab) ermittelt wird.
Durch diese Ungereimtheiten mag ich dem Delta E bei Bildschirmen nicht so
recht vertrauen.
Wer weiß Rat ?
Viele Grüße
Armin Collong
Guten morgen Liste,
ich habe gerade die über die ECI / IFRA Seite downloadbaren Profile
ausgetestet und bin über das Ergebnis doch recht überrascht:
Proofsimulation mit dem Profil Zeitung_QUIZ_22_02.03V2 ergibt bis zu
dem Punkt an dem die
gesättigten Farben / Tiefe beginnen ein dem Zeitungsdruck
vergleichbares opt. Ergebnis,
die gesättigten Farben / Tiefe sind jedoch viel zu hell. Kann ich das
noch optimieren?
und gibt es eine gute Simulationsmöglichkeit am Proofer für S/W TZ?
Hello Vladimir
Our emails have crossed.
Your email was not there when I posted my last
email.
Obviously some of the questions are now answered.
As for the question of documentation the original
set had full documentation. The current
FOGRACharakterisierung zip file contains none.
The important thing right now is that users of the
data check that they are using the latest version.
As I stated in my earlier email, I think that
people involved in furthering the standards should
be commended, not attacked.
Best regards
Nick
Dieter
A statement from FOGRA would surely answer my
questions.
You are, of course, speaking from your point.
I feel only they are able to answer.
It isn't a public hearing but a discussion.
The list is being used to ascertain what is
correct, for all to benefit.
Of course people make mistakes and one would like
to think they would be secure enough to admit the
mistakes.
We should of course be tolerant.
My questions are clear and NOT intended as some
kind of witch hunt.
I think that people involved in furthering the
standards should be commended, not attacked.
Best regards
Nick
Hello Vladimir
I accept that FOGRA made a mistake.
I am still puzzled.
I think there are a lot of questions that remain
unanswered.
The set I downloaded in November does have
documentation.
The files I downloaded were available for quite
some time.
Why does the latest data set have a file creation
date of 19 March 2003 if it was a file supposedly
measured in August 2002?
How was a data set that was supposedly available
on Jan 22, 2002 not created until 19 March 2003?
What was the small "last minute" error?
Why do both sets of Data have August 2002 in the
header if there was an error not noticed until
November-December?
I think we need a statement from FOGRA.
Best regards
Nick
Hello Nick,
with your permission, I would like to post my answer to the comunity as
well. I´m shure that your topic will cause a lot of questions. I hope that
this will be a proper explanation for all members.
Now, you mentioned the November 2002. This explains a lot. The very first
data-set was in deed a wrong one. You mast have been very fast because the
data were uploaded and deleted on one and the same day! The creators of the
charakterization data noticed a small "last minute" error witch could cause
a quiet bigger printing problem. The official data-set was uploaded on 5th
Dez 2002. This is the "right" one, and all the profiles on the ECI HP are
based on it. The description files were issued on Jan 22, 2002. This data
had not been changed in any way, they are official and well described in a
propper documentation. The one-day November upload was, as far as I know not
documented in any way. This data-set was really only for a copule of hours
online and I can understand the webmaster of the FOGRA HP for not issuing
any warnings or docs. He also had a lot of uploads to deal with during that
time.
I hope that this will answer your question. In the meantime just get rid of
the old charakterization data-set and enjoy the summer :-)
Kind regards
Vladimir
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vista" <vista(a)ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Vladimir Gajic" <vgajic(a)abc-digital.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Eci] ISO Coated sb profile
> Hello Vladimir
>
> I downloaded the first set around November 2002.
>
> Second set, July 2003.
>
> Best regards
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Gajic
> [mailto:vgajic@abc-digital.com]
> Sent: 15 July 2003 08:46
> To: Vista
> Subject: Re: [Eci] ISO Coated sb profile
>
>
> Hello Nick,
>
> when did you downloaded the data from the FOGRA
> HP? Maybe I will be able to
> give you a final information today...
>
> Regards
> Vladimir
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vista" <vista(a)ukonline.co.uk>
> To: "ECI" <eci(a)lists.transmedia.de>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:46 PM
> Subject: [Eci] ISO Coated sb profile
>
>
> > Hello Vladimir
> >
> > You do not need to convert or extract the data.
> >
> > Just simply open it with a text editor.
> >
> > As I pointed out to you already, if you look at:
> >
> > Line 924 in FOGRA 15L: 63.66 -1.03 61.95
> >
> > Line 924 in ISO coated sb
> > Line 924 in alternative FOGRA 15L: 66.68 -1.17
> > 65.31
> >
> >
> > The difference of the two FOGRA 15 data sets is
> > quite apparent.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with this, FOGRA does.
> >
> > I brought this to the attention of this list
> > because something is incorrect.
> >
> > Others not noticing it, doesn't excuse the
> > inaccuracy.
> >
> > There are obviously at least two sets of data in
> > circulation.
> >
> > I await the reply from FOGRA.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Eci mailing list
> > Eci(a)lists.transmedia.de
> > http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci
>
>
Hi,
I'm looking for a Downloadlink to the ColorLab-Tools from
GretagMacbeth/Logo. If that's available I'd prefer a PC version. A search
on the homepage of GretagMacbeth wasn't successful.
Thanks for any pointers.
Regards
Peter
