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
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &
comparisons
