Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM?  (Read 9061 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2013, 09:59:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyway, I wish Adobe would release a letter to the color community explaining all of this stuff... We're all just frustrated, innocent bystanders pointing the finger at the wrong people!

Considering the audience and attendees here on LuLa, it might be possible to get something like that accomplished. What we need is enough vocal and influential people to draft a letter to Apple at the very least, asking them to address the CM problems like they used to in the very old days. How long his it been since there was a ColorSync product manager? If there is someone, he/she's hiding out in a bunker in Cupertino. Maybe we have to wait for OS 11 for color management to be fixed or totally eliminated...

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2013, 10:03:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Based on a recent bad experience with Keynote in terms of color management, and communications with Apple, I have no faith this company gives a poop about color management any more. Just not on their radar.

You've lost faith in them and XRite and everyone haven't you? They've got their issues and we've got ours...

I for one, thought things would be different in 2013. I thought color management would be easy and all the heavy lifting would be under the hood and manufacturers would ship great profiles with everything and us color management consultants would move on to other things. People keep telling me "Well that's good for you right? You've still got a job." I don't think so. I want things to be smart and efficient. Nothing would make me happier than a really simple print dialog box where you choose your paper, size and hit print and it comes out perfect - without the hassle of me making custom profiles and training the end user.

Apple has done a good job trying to be a consumer advocate. I think they will continue to be but there are some hot irons in the fire right now. It's a super competitive market with lots of upheaval and change. Temporary color management problems here and there are par for the course. That said, I'd rather there not have problems just like everyone else.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2013, 10:06:18 AM »
ReplyReply

You've lost faith in them and XRite and everyone haven't you?

Not everyone. A lot more faith in Apple. Much less in X-rite. They are a good hardware company. Software? Not so much.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2013, 10:09:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Considering the audience and attendees here on LuLa, it might be possible to get something like that accomplished. What we need is enough vocal and influential people to draft a letter to Apple at the very least, asking them to address the CM problems like they used to in the very old days.

They could do that on a blog. Adobe has been really good about community education via their blogs. They are leading the way in that respect.

Another i3forum or something like it would be nice but I think the focus just isn't there on these topics like there used to be.

How long his it been since there was a ColorSync product manager?

Apple operates itself like a startup, constantly moving engineers around. Do they even call it ColorSync anymore anyway? I like their idea of measuring displays at the factory and hard coding a matrix of measurements into the device and having the OS generate a matrix profile on the fly when it's connected to a display. That's the kind of smart, bigger picture thinking that only someone like Apple can do...
Logged

Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2013, 10:12:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Much less in X-rite. They are a good hardware company. Software? Not so much.

The world isn't perfect that's for sure. i1Profiler's UI layer is one thing but on the other hand there's some absolutely incredible color science happening under the hood that's way ahead of the competition. Can't have them both I guess. I'll go for the awesome color science under the hood and try to count my blessings.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2013, 11:18:49 AM »
ReplyReply

i1Profiler's UI layer is one thing but on the other hand there's some absolutely incredible color science happening under the hood that's way ahead of the competition.

What competition? That's part of the problem.

And yes, there is a very smart color scientist at X-rite but that doesn't mean the software development using that technology has to be slow, buggy and designed poorly. We rarely see this at Adobe.

Quote
Can't have them both I guess.

Sure we can. Don't lower your standards. And when will we get even part of the functionality back from ProfileMaker Pro all these years after it's development was stopped in favor of i1P? Just MeasureTool! The glacial software development speed at X-rite is shocking IMHO. Their Q&E is kind of a joke too.

Quote
I like their idea of measuring displays at the factory and hard coding a matrix of measurements into the device and having the OS generate a matrix profile on the fly when it's connected to a display. That's the kind of smart, bigger picture thinking that only someone like Apple can do...

Or NEC.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2013, 12:03:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I like their idea of measuring displays at the factory and hard coding a matrix of measurements into the device and having the OS generate a matrix profile on the fly when it's connected to a display. That's the kind of smart, bigger picture thinking that only someone like Apple can do...

Does this only work on Apple displays including built-in models like their laptops and iMac? Have you measured how accurate they are, just curious?

I've known and used that special sauce matrix building capability Apple improved upon when using theirs and SuperCal's eyeball calibrators. I'm just surprised you'ld mention this, so I'm wondering if improvements have been made since Tiger OS where I first noticed Apple's improvement building proper color transform matrix profiles pulling EDID Rom chip data off any display when building a default profile.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2013, 12:20:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Does this only work on Apple displays including built-in models like their laptops and iMac?

None of the above. I think Scott is referring to the very old ColorSync displays (I think that's what there were called) which at the time did an auto update of the calibration so to speak, based on time the display was on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_ColorSync/AppleVision_750_Display
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2013, 03:02:33 PM »
ReplyReply

From what's been discussed about Apple's not allowing "No Color Management" settings from being turned on for custom profiling using a color target, I can only suspect several reasons seeing what little demand for answers except from audiences at LuLa and other sites.

1. The public is accepting a close enough screen to print color match utilizing the OS's CM and/or canned printer profiles reducing the complexity and expense of custom profiling going by all the online complaints that arise when it doesn't work or no one can understand how to use it correctly (i.e."My print's are too dark"). How many of those do we see online? The numbers are ridiculous.

2. Reduce tech support burdens when this stuff doesn't work as intended because of...(see #1 especially "My prints are too dark".)

3. Reduce bad press online associated with blaming Apple vs Adobe vs xxx printer driver manufacturer.

4. Reduce the amount of hesitation in buying by the general public of said products due to...(see #3 and the results of information overload).

I mean if Apple didn't give a crap about color management why would they provide so many tools in the OS including a color managed browser, Colorsync Utility and DigitalColor Meter which I use its Lab readouts for checking X-rite CC chart in DNG Profile Editor when creating custom camera profiles. Pretty handy. No one seems to bother to use it though and end up creating complaint topics online griping about why DNG PE only shows linear sensor data readouts.

Yeah, Apple sucks at caring about color management.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2013, 03:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply


I mean if Apple didn't give a crap about color management why would they provide so many tools in the OS including a color managed browser, Colorsync Utility and DigitalColor Meter which I use its Lab readouts for checking X-rite CC chart in DNG Profile Editor when creating custom camera profiles. Pretty handy. No one seems to bother to use it though and end up creating complaint topics online griping about why DNG PE only shows linear sensor data readouts.

Yeah, Apple sucks at caring about color management.

First off, Safari isn't all that hot when it comes to color management. It's better than some browsers but far from ideal. How it (and the OS) treat untagged data is simply stupid. It was far superior in OS9 when it assumed sRGB (or one could even tell it what to assume).

I can probably count the number or people who use the DigitalColor Meter and it's been around so long, let's give credit to the people at Apple who provided it years and years ago.

The ColorSync utility is pretty buggy, and again, it's been around a long time and needs an update.

Speaking of OS9 and profiles, remember how easy it was to install em? Drop them over the system folder and the OS would put them where they belong. Windows is far superior to OS X, right click: Install Profile.

Did Apple give a crap about color management? Yes, in a big way, about 5-7 years ago. Do they now? I don't see any proof. Look at the color management (or lack thereof) on iPhone and iPad.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2013, 04:00:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
First off, Safari isn't all that hot when it comes to color management.

I don't have any complaints nor do I see any by and large except by those who worry about controlling how their image gallery will be seen by potential customers on their wide gamut uncalibrated/non-profiled displays in non-color managed browsers. The web isn't the best place to build a wide audience and demand for one's work.

Quote
Speaking of OS9 and profiles, remember how easy it was to install em? Drop them over the system folder and the OS would put them where they belong. Windows is far superior to OS X, right click: Install Profile.

Yeah, I miss that, but then I also don't miss the extension conflict issues and finally got used to Linux based GUI directory where I can have Safari, Bridge and Photoshop open while I tunnel down from Mac HD>Library>Colorsync>Profiles folder and just drop a profile in and have it immediately appear in Photoshop's menu system without a hitch or relaunch. Go back to the open folder and trash it with none of the open apps choking.

Quote
Did Apple give a crap about color management? Yes, in a big way, about 5-7 years ago. Do they now? I don't see any proof. Look at the color management (or lack thereof) on iPhone and iPad.

I don't see anything broke for them to fix except the complaints posted by color management purists and consultants which are such a small audience. And seeing from my own experience in the field the lack of demand for those kind of services in my neck of the woods and by broadcast TV and considering the migration of information exchange away from print to the web, from what I saw of my sRGB images on an iPad and iPod, I don't see the expense and complexity are justified.

Want to match to a Pantone color? No one gives a shit. They're too busy to notice seeing they're bombarded with content overload on a daily basis with the web, TV and what little time they have left for print.

It's been over ten years for this technology to develop and at least it's a lot better than it used to be with off the shelf devices in my experience so I think good enough color match will suffice for right now until device manufacturers get a broader audience who care about color and complain about it. I'm suspecting Apple thinks the less the general public notice who drive up their sales, the less resources they see they have to devote to making it perfect.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 04:03:01 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2013, 04:19:21 PM »
ReplyReply

And something else I found yesterday on my Mac when I was doing a search entering the term "Raw". What pops up? A slew of ICC linear encoded Colorsync profiles of almost every camera brand you can imagine installed by my cheapy ass $50 Epson NX330 "All In One" printer for Epson's Easy Photo Print software.

I located my specific camera profile and copied it to the desktop and installed it in the appropriate directory and then assigned the profile in Photoshop which made the image way too bright and yellowish.

Where did Epson get these camera specific ICC profiles from? Who built them? What target did they use? Epson seems to think the Mac OS is going to use them or allow Epson's software to play nice with Apple's color managed display/printer driver pipeline.

I did a profile comparison of my EpRaw Pentax K100D camera profile in Colorsync Utility and its 3D model is as big as AdobeRGB only with a 1.0 gamma.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2013, 05:03:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't have any complaints nor do I see any by and large except by those who worry about controlling how their image gallery will be seen by potential customers on their wide gamut uncalibrated/non-profiled displays in non-color managed browsers. The web isn't the best place to build a wide audience and demand for one's work.
Safari assumes all untagged documents are in your display color space. That's just stupid! You (or others) upload sRGB images, untagged, and this behavior ensures that what you and everyone else see's doesn't match. In the old days, whatever browser we had from Apple (maybe early Safari, can't recall) assumed untagged data was in sRGB. I'd prefer to tell the browser or OS what to assume as we can in Photoshop, but assuming sRGB in this context makes far more sense then assuming it is in your display profile!

FireFox assumes sRGB, at least it seems to as it perfectly matches the sRGB document tested in Photoshop.
Quote
I don't see anything broke for them to fix except the complaints posted by color management purists and consultants which are such a small audience.

You mean the people who understand the problems with their software as I just illustrated?

Quote
Want to match to a Pantone color? No one gives a shit.

It's always interesting hearing people speak for everyone else. Just speak for yourself.

Quote
It's been over ten years for this technology to develop and at least it's a lot better than it used to be
Two steps forwards, a good step back. It isn't like people are not complaining about color issues on the web...

Quote
with off the shelf devices in my experience so I think good enough color match will suffice for right now until device manufacturers get a broader audience who care about color and complain about it.

The hardware has progressed. The software, not so much.

Quote
I'm suspecting Apple thinks the less the general public notice who drive up their sales, the less resources they see they have to devote to making it perfect.
IOW, ignorance is bliss?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2013, 05:06:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I did a profile comparison of my EpRaw Pentax K100D camera profile in Colorsync Utility and its 3D model is as big as AdobeRGB only with a 1.0 gamma.

Expect that too is broken so to speak (it doesn't map the gamut correctly if that matters to you). Apple isn't alone. Another reason ColorThink (Pro or otherwise) is worth it's weight in gold. It actually shows you the gamut mapping in a useful way.

What more buggy CS fun? Start playing with Quartz filters. What a mess in that app (not that those filters ever amounted to anything useful).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2013, 07:35:28 PM »
ReplyReply

So you don't know anything about these Epson ICC camera profiles and how they were created? Why would Epson bother making camera profiles?

Doesn't that indicate to you that these device manufacturers believe color management is a useful technology to go to that kind of trouble?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2013, 07:47:28 PM »
ReplyReply

So you don't know anything about these Epson ICC camera profiles and how they were created? Why would Epson bother making camera profiles?

Are you addressing this question to me? Cause I haven't a bloody clue how they managed to find their way on your machine, how could I? I don't have them. I don't even have a lot of faith in ICC camera profiles.

Epson at one time did make digital cameras.

Quote
Doesn't that indicate to you that these device manufacturers believe color management is a useful technology to go to that kind of trouble?

Not in the least, based upon the assumption that they went through any trouble.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2013, 11:05:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you addressing this question to me? Cause I haven't a bloody clue how they managed to find their way on your machine, how could I? I don't have them. I don't even have a lot of faith in ICC camera profiles.

Epson at one time did make digital cameras.

Not in the least, based upon the assumption that they went through any trouble.

Trouble in regards that they've included every camera manufacturer's model. They don't even include Epson camera models.

And yeah, I was directing this question at you, Andrew, the expert and published authority on color management.

But I can see you're limited in your knowledge in this matter so I'll just find the answers somewhere else.

mmh...So you have no faith in something you know nothing about, never seen and can't explain with regards to these Epson ICC camera profiles?

That's rich!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 11:07:42 AM by tlooknbill » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2013, 11:22:31 AM »
ReplyReply

mmh...So you have no faith in something you know nothing about, never seen and can't explain with regards to these Epson ICC camera profiles?

Andrew has no faith in ICC profiles made for Bayer array cameras. Neither do I and neither did Bruce Fraser. And, apparently, neither does X-Rite since they took ICC camera profiling out of i1 Profiler...

As to why Andrew has no knowledge of how certain camera profiles may have been installed on YOUR system maybe because Andrew is familiar with pro level printers, not your "cheapy ass $50 Epson NX330 "All In One" printer with Epson's Easy Photo Print software". As far as I know, I've NEVER installed Epson's Easy Photo Print software on any computer and I suspect Andrew hasn't either...


Quote
But I can see you're limited in your knowledge in this matter so I'll just find the answers somewhere else.

Good idea...
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2013, 11:35:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Well said Jeff!
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2013, 11:48:03 AM »
ReplyReply

But I can see you're limited in your knowledge in this matter so I'll just find the answers somewhere else.
Yes I'd agree my knowledge of cheapy ass $50 Epson NX330 (your words) and whatever profiles were provided is zero.

Quote
mmh...So you have no faith in something you know nothing about, never seen and can't explain with regards to these Epson ICC camera profiles?

I have a fair bit of experience with ICC camera profiles dating back to the last century from just about every software option that was available to build them. I did a fair amount of work with X-rite on the creation and use of their various camera targets and the software used to build camera profiles. I've built a fair number of camera profiles in differing environments. I have zero information or experience with the profiles you are discussing but that doesn't change my opinion of ICC camera profiles one lick. I still have no faith in something I've spent years working with. And no nothing about these Epson ICC camera profiles you refer to that somehow apply to your $50 NX330. I don't think they are magical in any way that would change my mind about ICC camera profiles.

Now that you've taken us down this silly Epson ICC camera profile rabbit hole, what's your point? It had something to do with how Apple isn't focused on color management? Because that's where we were before this silly digression you've designed.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad