Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"



On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:39:18 -0800  shAf (michael@shaffer.net) wrote:

>     I meant it only in the context of what you seemed to imply ... VS
> offering only trismuthus matrix tranformations.  It is apparently something
> quite rigorous to impliment and tranform 3-dimensional LUT-type device
> profiles.  I believe Ed would have to license the Adobe or Kodak rendering
> engines to offer this.

Yes, I think you're correct, which is why he avoids a LUT I daresay. I can't 
take this discussion much further as I'm not sufficiently au fait with what Ed 
does or claims, or the more esoteric aspects of ICC derivation.
 
>     As you noted I expect a lot for $40 ... but not really ... I only want
> an understanding of Ed's implimentations, and strive for clearing up any
> confusions.  For example ... to ask for AdobeRGB from VS, and then see the
> image in VS's window is terribly confusing ... that is, until you understand
> why.

Well, yes, it is if it matters to you that the window should bear much relation 
to what eventually emerges in PS. There's evidently scope for handling things 
better there, and AFAIK VS makes no attempt at accurate, ICM display. 
Personally this doesn't matter one bit to me, as I use VS only to acquire a 
16bit scan I can deal with in PS - but if you want corrected, 8 bit scans, yes, 
it's a problem.

I think that we have to bear in mind where it started from, as a standalone 
scanning prog for the Photosmart only, pre ICM. There's a good case for a 
rewrite as a PS plugin, and another good case for proper ICM implementation, 
but that would probably lock out a majority of users who cannot afford the 
level of expense involved in this degree of obsessive behaviour. 

This might be a plea for a VS Pro version, if the market is really there. But 
it may well not be. I think if you add up the costs of mid-high prosumer 
scanning and dig imaging, it is truly scary. I expect most people who have and 
use PS have thrown $3-10,000 at their entire system incl. scanner, s/w, 
computer, printer. Then there's consumables and endless upgrades. I doubt many 
people get away with spending less than $2-3000/year, one way and another - and 
that's on top of cameras, F&P, etc. Even if you do this for a living, clients 
don't want to pay any extra and there's the added problem of ignorance messing 
up results, which makes them even more reluctant.

I have mailed Ed and asked that he consider returning as I think there's some 
useful VS-related stuff happening here now. And I intend stamping my feet a bit 
harder WRT OT discussions.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.