PDA

View Full Version : New version with no UV-cut measurements is on the way?


rogerB
12-16-2010, 04:43 PM
I heard through the grapevine that ColorFlow is soon to support the use of no UV-cut filter on the iSis. Meaning, if a user like wants to override the current ColorFlow policy of only retaining UV-cut measurements out the iSis, it will be possible? Through a preference of some kind.

When is that going to be available to the masses?

Best / Roger

jstotz
12-20-2010, 02:43 PM
I would also like to be able to measure the same chart with UV cut and no UV cut and let ColorFlow make use of the extra info.

rogerB
12-20-2010, 06:34 PM
The only way I found to "work around" this issue (may not be an issue for some people) is to use a third party application, like ColorPort, where I have the choice between no UV-cut and UV-cut filtration, to read the charts in, and then import my choice of measurements into CF. (Can't use CF charts)

The way it was explained in the training, CF makes no further analysis or 'improvement' on the raw data over and above its choice of UV-cut measurements. Other than smoothing, that is. So, I am not sure if we'd be able to feed in both sets of measurements that CFwould be able to do anything smarter over and above what it's already doing.

It's a Kodak policy to leave the filter on all the time.

Best / Roger

jstotz
12-20-2010, 06:53 PM
So, I am not sure if we'd be able to feed in both sets of measurements that CFwould be able to do anything smarter over and above what it's already doing.

Yes, CF would definitely have to have some intelligence to handle both measurements. I'm sure averaging them would not be appropriate; maybe subtracting one from the other?

As I understand it, given only one set of measurements, any software has to guess as to what effect the UV component is having on the color. I would think that if both measurements were available, the software could do a better job of determining the effect of the brighteners.

rogerB
01-07-2011, 03:12 PM
It would be nice to have a reply to my original post from Kodak?

We're January 7th 2011 today.

/ Roger

david.herder
01-07-2011, 08:17 PM
Hey guys,
As always, if you require an immediate response to any inquiry, it is best to contact the Response Center. That being said, I do my best to try to respond to the forum in a timely manner. Please accept my apologies in the delay.

With regard to non-UV support for the iSis, I have requested this some time ago and logged PR DHER-1395 as a feature request. I will flag this feature request again with our product management team.

regards,
dave

a.bonsey
01-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Having spoken to Xrite (who make the Isis) and their programmers, all the required software/details etc have been given to Kodak, it's just a case of them ensuring the software switches it on. So it's down to Kodak?

rogerB
01-17-2011, 02:42 PM
Yes, by all means, it is down to Kodak. It was a Kodak policy decision to only retain the UV-filtered measurement out of the instrument, one I disapprove of personally. Both X-Rite ColorPort and MeasureTool have offered the choice to the user from day one. I suspect Monaco Profiler too. In the HDM software, interestingly enough, the user is not given the choice, as in ColorFlow, but the decision was made to only retain the non-UVcut measurements, which I find "better" conceptually.

Does anyone know about the recent ISO-13655 dealings? I'm told they introduced an M0, M1 and M2 condition. Seems to me that one of those conditions is made for UV-cut measurement? An M1 instrument, I think, is one that fully simulated the SPD of D50 in the light source. Such an instrument still does not exist. An M0 instrument has a tungsten-based illumination. Most colorimetric measurements and processing are meant to be tungsten-based, to my knowledge, for the purpose of graphic arts. But I could be wrong and need to spend more time studying 13655:2009. (Or is it 2008?)

Roger Breton