SG: "ImageFX is better than ALL industry-standard animation & compositing apps"
bbq_sgt
>Jon Carroll <dra...@infi.net> writes:
>
>>
>> Compositing, video editing, and 3d rendering are more powerful on an
>> amiga?
>
>Absolutely.
Explain how, please. Specific facts and real-world scenarios would be
appreciated.
>> Maybe ten years ago, but not true now. Show me a current TV
>> show or feature film using Amigas for any of these.
>
>Doesn't matter, large companies forced to buy main stream.
Ok, it's time for you to learn something about an area which you have no
experience or knowledge in, namely the professional film& video production
industry.
"Large companies" (on the order of companies like ILM, Pixar, etc.) in this
industry is a rarity nowadays. Most of the motion graphics, 3D animation, video
& film editing you see on TV and in major motion pictures nowadays are done by
small, "boutique" companies with staffs of anywhere between 2 to 30 that
specialize in thier respective fields.
These small companies buy tools that are:
A) Fast
B) Efficient
C) Filled with features that are necessary and used every day
D) Developed and supported by real-world users, not geeky engineers
Creative-production companies, by their veyr nature, don't give a rats ass about
"main stream" stuff. In fact, almost all the "large companies", which you so
ignorantly speak of, create their own proprietary software tools, simply because
some of the "main stream" stuff isn't good enough for the workflow that they
use.
Of course, this doesn't imply that the mainstream stuff isn't good, as these
same companies DO use them extensively. Photoshop, After Effects, Combustion,
Commotion, Shake, etc. are all used and accepted by the *artists* that make all
the pretty pictures you see on the silver screen. One thing is for sure, they
AREN'T use Amiga based tools for anything of significance. It has nothing to do
with mainstream-ness, or accepting the "lowest common denominator" (a statement
which is funny coming from you, because you have never produced anything with
your Amiga tools that *isn't* of the lowest-common denominator, if the images on
your website are any indication), it has everything to do with getting the job
done efficiently and with the highest quality possible.
There is a reason why certain software products become "mainstream" within thier
respective niches: They are good. Of course, marketing comes into play, and it's
undeniable that there is a lot of overrated software products out there that
continue to exist solely because of marketing efforts (ahem, Microsoft Windows,
anyone?), but for the most part, products become popular and "mainstreamed" in
the film and video industry because they kick ass, and artists tend to like to
use things that "kick ass", regardless of thier popularity.
ImageFX, while it certainly kicked ass back in the day, is nowhere on the radar
of creative professionals *today* simply because it no longer kicks ass. To
imply that it is being ignored simply because it's not "mainstream" is such a
phenomenal display of childlike denial that it hardly deserves a serious
rebuttal.
>> My guess is you haven't used any current grpahics and image processing
>> apps on the PC... or just totally ignore the difference between them
>> and the Amiga and dont understand why the PC/Unix/Mac ones are better.
>
>I use them a lot, but I find them terribly condesending and few
>do much powerfully. There are some ports of Amiga software that
>run poorly under Windows, but retain some of the features.
Again, you say you use these products "a lot", but you never show anything of
substance to back these claims up. Your ridiculous statements would hold a lot
more water if you were actually producing quality work using these apps.
>> ImageFX is a wonderful graphics app, but it sure as hades isn't equal
>> to Shake, Combustion or After Effects.
>
>IFX blows every other image processor away, peroid. The 3 you
>mention wouldn't stand a chance in the far more advance d Amiga
>image processing market place
You mean there's a marketplace for Amiga based image processing? Is that
anywhere near the store that sells souped up 8-track tape home entertainment
systems?
I can't believe that even YOU honestly believe such a ridiculous statement,
Steve. Especially considering the fact that you've NEVER used any of those 3
apps with any level of experience past looking at screenshots of them in
magazines and on websites.
The fact is, there is NO equivalent to any of those applications on the Amiga,
period, much less ImageFX, proper. NONE WHATSOEVER. Do I really have to state
specially how this is the case? Goddamn, I dont have the energy for this,
but....oh fuck it, here's one:
IFX can't do motion-tracking/stablization. This is a feature that AE, Combustion
and Commotion, and Shake users (as well as almost every other compositing and
animation application) have taken for granted for many, many years. They all do
subpixel motion tracking/stabilization, tracking on fields, reverse tracking,
image pre-blurring for tracking accuracy, tracking on specific RGB channels,
position and rotation tracking, and interpolated feature tracking behind
obscured objects.
Wow, hard facts used to bolster an opinion...what a concept, eh?
If you want me to further go up head to head with you and IFX, feature for
feature, then fire away. But I'm going out to dinner now.
Gary Beeton
news:dcqg7vk823ngmomnr...@4ax.com:
> I keep asking myself what on earth a pilot (if indeed he is one)
> would need to use such apps for 'a lot'.
He needs to edit his gun camera video to make it look like he hit the
right targets.
--
Gary Beeton
Wilfred Myers
> ImageFX, while it certainly kicked ass back in the day, is nowhere on the radar
> of creative professionals *today* simply because it no longer kicks ass. To
> imply that it is being ignored simply because it's not "mainstream" is such a
> phenomenal display of childlike denial that it hardly deserves a serious
> rebuttal.
> You mean there's a marketplace for Amiga based image processing? Is that
> anywhere near the store that sells souped up 8-track tape home entertainment
> systems?
> The fact is, there is NO equivalent to any of those applications on the Amiga,
> period, much less ImageFX, proper. NONE WHATSOEVER. Do I really have to state
> specially how this is the case? Goddamn, I dont have the energy for this,
> but....oh fuck it, here's one:
> IFX can't do motion-tracking/stablization. This is a feature that AE, Combustion
> and Commotion, and Shake users (as well as almost every other compositing and
> animation application) have taken for granted for many, many years. They all do
> subpixel motion tracking/stabilization, tracking on fields, reverse tracking,
> image pre-blurring for tracking accuracy, tracking on specific RGB channels,
> position and rotation tracking, and interpolated feature tracking behind
> obscured objects.
I thought it could. I use ImageFX alot.
Under the Convolve Custom settings.
there is a motion remover in there.
Also a line remover. Plus a shit load of other stuff Ive not even
looked at yet it all the 5 plus years of having it.
Ive been using it for several years now and find it still does the
jobs I ask of it. Yest it may not be as fast as the PC equiv. but its
still a kick ass bit of kit. and its got more style than any PC or mac
software out there.
How many PC/Mac companies can you e-mail about their software and get
an almost instant reply from there MDs. Ive spoken with Kermit several
times about his packages, and got several upgrades of him. Now that is
more business like than Ive ever got elsewere.
Lets face it, the amiga is still alive because its still a usable
machine.
Regards
Wombat.
J...@no.komm
"Wilfred Myers" <wom...@members.v21.co.uk> wrote:
>Ive been using it for several years now and find it still does the
>jobs I ask of it. Yest it may not be as fast as the PC equiv. but its
>still a kick ass bit of kit. and its got more style than any PC or mac
>software out there.
You've tried them all? There are quite a few of them.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Wombat
> You've tried them all? There are quite a few of them.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Not all of em. !! Just ones ive got. Photoshop6, Freehand,
3DstudioMax, DreamweaverMX, FlashMX, QuarkExpress, Illustrator,
Fireworks. Plus several others that are unmemorable.
Indeed they are all fine Programs for the industry to have and fast to
use. But for a Home User ImageFX is still the one I choose to use.
I guess its just the individuals choice, and when your at home doing
your stuff, there is no need to have every thing done in half the
time, whats the rush.
Regards
Wombat
SG
> Snip.
>
> > You've tried them all? There are quite a few of them.
> > --
> >
> > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> > John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
>
> Not all of em. !! Just ones ive got. Photoshop6, Freehand,
> 3DstudioMax, DreamweaverMX, FlashMX, QuarkExpress, Illustrator,
> Fireworks. Plus several others that are unmemorable.
> Indeed they are all fine Programs for the industry to have and fast to
> use. But for a Home User ImageFX is still the one I choose to use.
Correct. IFX is unlike any of those Windows programs. Indeed, there
is nothing available for any other platform that is even remotely
similar to IFX, though some, like the ones mentioned have tiny areas
of overlap. Simply put, if one is serious about image processing
powerfully, Amiga IFX is the only solution currently available.
Imagine running hundreds of precision multitasking, roundly
interacting, self learning modules on a Windows machine, all
contributing to the completion of massively complex projects with
single button clicks. Heck, imagine running even one good instance
under Windows. Nothing is available, nor does XP's multitasking exist
in a similarly useful state.
I use $700 Photoshop occasionally when I'm away from my Amiga. PS is
simply laughable by Amiga standards, and surprisingly it actually is
available for the Amiga platform in the form of AE4--virtually
identical in both form and funtion to PS. AE4 sells for $18. That is
exactly what a weak program like PS is worth in the context of the
overwhelmingly more powerful Amiga gfx environment. And of course PS
cannot multitask instances at all, let alone self-interact, making the
even the extrememly crude multitasking of XP completely useless
anyway.
IFX stands as the world standard for powerful image processing.
Indeed, there is no other program avaialable at any price, for any
platform, with more than a percent or so of its raw capability.
Timothy A. Seufert
AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote:
> IFX stands as the world standard for powerful image processing.
> Indeed, there is no other program avaialable at any price, for any
> platform, with more than a percent or so of its raw capability.
This would be the same IFX that in the real world (as opposed to the
SteveWorld) utterly lacks color management, making it a joke for any
kind of serious prepress work, right?
--
-- T.
SG
I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and Photoshop have
been taking here for its horribly inaccurate color and picture
reproduction. Amiga renditions are all utterly pristine and fully
adjustable (IFX includes is own adjustment monitor adjustment
utilities which aren't necessary given the Windows/Mac obliterating
custom color power of CGX.
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:34577b4f.03040...@posting.google.com:
>> > IFX stands as the world standard for powerful image
>> > processing. Indeed, there is no other program avaialable at
>> > any price, for any platform, with more than a percent or so
>> > of its raw capability.
>>
>> This would be the same IFX that in the real world (as opposed
>> to the SteveWorld) utterly lacks color management, making it a
>> joke for any kind of serious prepress work, right?
>
> I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and Photoshop
> have been taking here for its horribly inaccurate color and
> picture reproduction.
I don't know Steve, it seems you just forgot to turn off color
management in Photoshop.
> Amiga renditions are all utterly pristine
> and fully adjustable (IFX includes is own adjustment monitor
> adjustment utilities which aren't necessary given the
> Windows/Mac obliterating custom color power of CGX.
So, if I want to add a color profile to my image, addapted
for my particular digital camera and display, how do I do
that in IFX?
Regards...
Timothy A. Seufert
> "Timothy A. Seufert" <t...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<tas-270142.0...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <34577b4f.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> > AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote:
> >
> > > IFX stands as the world standard for powerful image processing.
> > > Indeed, there is no other program avaialable at any price, for any
> > > platform, with more than a percent or so of its raw capability.
> >
> > This would be the same IFX that in the real world (as opposed to the
> > SteveWorld) utterly lacks color management, making it a joke for any
> > kind of serious prepress work, right?
>
> I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and Photoshop have
> been taking here for its horribly inaccurate color and picture
> reproduction.
Your blatherings do not amount to a pounding, and you seem to have
missed the numerous times when you were taught that Photoshop's color
management needs to be calibrated or turned off before it is useful.
> Amiga renditions are all utterly pristine and fully
> adjustable (IFX includes is own adjustment monitor adjustment
> utilities which aren't necessary given the Windows/Mac obliterating
> custom color power of CGX.
This Windows/Mac obliterating custom color power would be why Amiga has
essentially zero percent of the modern content creation market, right?
--
-- T.
bbq_sgt
I guess you are such a spineless, ignorant twit that you willingly ignore the
numerous times that you've been taught the very basics of professional CMS,
which every real graphics professional uses every day in applications such as
Photoshop.
But since you've never used a PC or Windows or Photoshop or any professional
graphics application whatsoever, I can understand why you're so eager to avoid
the truth and redefine your embarrassing ignorance about all things relating to
professional graphics into something resembling an intellectual defense.
Saddam Hussein would really be glad to have someone like you working in his PR
department.
Timothy A. Seufert
bbq_sgt <nos...@null.gov> wrote:
> Saddam Hussein would really be glad to have someone like you working in his
> PR
> department.
Steve does behave an awful lot like the Iraqi Minister of Information,
doesn't he?
--
-- T.
Aaron Young
> I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and Photoshop have
> been taking here for its horribly inaccurate color and picture
> reproduction. Amiga renditions are all utterly pristine and fully
> adjustable (IFX includes is own adjustment monitor adjustment
> utilities which aren't necessary given the Windows/Mac obliterating
> custom color power of CGX.
Bwahahahaha! Oh shit, dude. That is sooooo funny!
SG
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> news:34577b4f.03040...@posting.google.com:
> > "Timothy A. Seufert" <t...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > IFX stands as the world standard for powerful image
> >> > processing. Indeed, there is no other program avaialable at
> >> > any price, for any platform, with more than a percent or so
> >> > of its raw capability.
> >>
> >> This would be the same IFX that in the real world (as opposed
> >> to the SteveWorld) utterly lacks color management, making it a
> >> joke for any kind of serious prepress work, right?
> >
> > I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and Photoshop
> > have been taking here for its horribly inaccurate color and
> > picture reproduction.
>
> I don't know Steve, it seems you just forgot to turn off color
> management in Photoshop.
Its on.
Windows is simply terrible for accurate, scientific image processing.
There are no powerful programs, and all render significantly
differently. Unacceptably poor platform.
Not to mention XP's horrific stability problems. Worst Windows
version yet.
> > Amiga renditions are all utterly pristine
> > and fully adjustable (IFX includes is own adjustment monitor
> > adjustment utilities which aren't necessary given the
> > Windows/Mac obliterating custom color power of CGX.
>
> So, if I want to add a color profile to my image, addapted
> for my particular digital camera and display, how do I do
> that in IFX?
Just launch a discrete, custom color corrected IFX profile using
multiple icons (one for each--or several for each, given the desire to
set other automatically launched options), or by loading prefs
settings after an instance load. Haven't you ever used this stuff?
This isn't one instance at a time, color inaccurate WindowsXP running
"can't hold a candle to ImageFX [--AmigaFormat]" Photoshop.
But you won't need to fix WindowsXP's color rendering problems if you
used an Amiga in the first place.
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:34577b4f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> news:<Xns9357EB1D...@193.216.69.37>...
>> > I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and
>> > Photoshop have been taking here for its horribly inaccurate
>> > color and picture reproduction.
>>
>> I don't know Steve, it seems you just forgot to turn off color
>> management in Photoshop.
>
> Its on.
>
> Windows is simply terrible for accurate, scientific image
> processing. There are no powerful programs, and all render
> significantly differently. Unacceptably poor platform.
Well if you're a serious photographer and want your work
reproduced accurately thrugh a digital media and finally to
ink on paper a modern color management system is a basic
requirement
>> > Amiga renditions are all utterly pristine
>> > and fully adjustable (IFX includes is own adjustment monitor
>> > adjustment utilities which aren't necessary given the
>> > Windows/Mac obliterating custom color power of CGX.
>>
>> So, if I want to add a color profile to my image, addapted
>> for my particular digital camera and display, how do I do
>> that in IFX?
>
> Just launch a discrete, custom color corrected IFX profile using
> multiple icons (one for each--or several for each, given the
> desire to set other automatically launched options), or by
> loading prefs settings after an instance load. Haven't you ever
> used this stuff?
A custom color IFX profile would do me no good. I want one
matching the characertistics of my display or camera. Just
a standard color profile - what you are suggesting would
require a spectrophotometer, a bunch of other software and
more time tweaking parameters than anyone could bother with.
> This isn't one instance at a time, color
> inaccurate WindowsXP running "can't hold a candle to ImageFX
> [--AmigaFormat]" Photoshop.
Actually in PS6 you can apply a different color space for
each image within the same document interface, even overriding
any color profile embedded in the images.
Regards...
SG
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> news:34577b4f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns9357EB1D...@193.216.69.37>...
>
> >> > I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and
> >> > Photoshop have been taking here for its horribly inaccurate
> >> > color and picture reproduction.
> >>
> >> I don't know Steve, it seems you just forgot to turn off color
> >> management in Photoshop.
> >
> > Its on.
> >
> > Windows is simply terrible for accurate, scientific image
> > processing. There are no powerful programs, and all render
> > significantly differently. Unacceptably poor platform.
>
> Well if you're a serious photographer and want your work
> reproduced accurately thrugh a digital media and finally to
> ink on paper a modern color management system is a basic
> requirement
Exactly why PS/Windows's consistent botching is unacceptable. See the
many examples I've posted. I can post 100s more, XP is the hands down
worst gfx OS ever fielded. Its virtually impossible to do accurate
work using it, since every program will render your work significantly
differently. Most, including OS's built-ins, are just plain off. By
a lot.
> > This isn't one instance at a time, color
> > inaccurate WindowsXP running "can't hold a candle to ImageFX
> > [--AmigaFormat]" Photoshop.
>
> Actually in PS6 you can apply a different color space for
> each image within the same document interface, even overriding
> any color profile embedded in the images.
Same for IFX, obviously, as it can actually multitask proper
instances, unlike jokish $300 XP running $700 PS.
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:34577b4f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
>> >> > I guess you've been missing the pounding Windows and
>> >> > Photoshop have been taking here for its horribly
>> >> > inaccurate color and picture reproduction.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know Steve, it seems you just forgot to turn off
>> >> color management in Photoshop.
>> >
>> > Its on.
>> >
>> > Windows is simply terrible for accurate, scientific image
>> > processing. There are no powerful programs, and all render
>> > significantly differently. Unacceptably poor platform.
>>
>> Well if you're a serious photographer and want your work
>> reproduced accurately thrugh a digital media and finally to
>> ink on paper a modern color management system is a basic
>> requirement
>
> Exactly why PS/Windows's consistent botching is unacceptable.
> See the many examples I've posted. I can post 100s more, XP is
> the hands down worst gfx OS ever fielded. Its virtually
> impossible to do accurate work using it, since every program
> will render your work significantly differently. Most,
> including OS's built-ins, are just plain off. By a lot.
You mean you still don't realize that you forgot to turn
off color management in Photoshop?
You seem supprisingly unfamiliar with digital imaging
basics for a graphics artist Steve :), here is the basic
idea behind color management standards:
http://www.vtc.com/photoshop-color.htm
"ICC (International Color Consortium) refers to a
set of universal protocols adopted by several companies
to ensure that color is described and interpreted
accurately and consistently. These standards are
supported by major applications such as Adobe Photoshop,
Illustrator, Acrobat, and InDesign, as well as monitors,
scanners, digital cameras and other hardware devices
sharing the same tool set."
So, thanks to ICC your image will be displayed with the
correct colors nomatter what monitor you have or which camera
or scanner you used, while the image itself is in CMYK for
your printer -- you just select your monitor profile, your
scanner profile and your ink profile.
IFX might hold the candle for animation and image processing,
but it's no good if you want accurate colors.
>> > This isn't one instance at a time, color
>> > inaccurate WindowsXP running "can't hold a candle to ImageFX
>> > [--AmigaFormat]" Photoshop.
>>
>> Actually in PS6 you can apply a different color space for
>> each image within the same document interface, even overriding
>> any color profile embedded in the images.
>
> Same for IFX, obviously, as it can actually multitask proper
> instances, unlike jokish $300 XP running $700 PS.
So how do you embed a color profile in IFX?
Regards...
SG
I know Windows and PS render radically differently, thats the point,
the platform as a whole blows for gfx.
> IFX might hold the candle for animation and image processing,
> but it's no good if you want accurate colors.
It utterly de3molishes all Windows (lowest common denominator)
applications in both areas. Which is obviously why AmigaFormat said
so.
> >> > This isn't one instance at a time, color
> >> > inaccurate WindowsXP running "can't hold a candle to ImageFX
> >> > [--AmigaFormat]" Photoshop.
> >>
> >> Actually in PS6 you can apply a different color space for
> >> each image within the same document interface, even overriding
> >> any color profile embedded in the images.
> >
> > Same for IFX, obviously, as it can actually multitask proper
> > instances, unlike jokish $300 XP running $700 PS.
>
> So how do you embed a color profile in IFX?
You aren't seriously saying you don't even have access to the program
after all this? Try going to "Prefs" (I know, its counter intuitive)
and see what you find. Specifically the Preview, Render, CyberWB
Preview Color Adjustment, and Screen/GFX card modules.
BTW, AOS/IFX even works properly on multiple monitors (and thus so do
unlimited custom color instances of IFX and everything other app)
using multiple gfx card color profiles to create complete virtual
environments for every screen/monitor attached, XP is utter trash. It
couldn't be more basic, powerless, just plain wrong and bug ridden.
It can't even display windows/requestors/dialog boxes automatically on
the proper monitors, let alone let every app pick for itself how it
manages its multiwindow, multiscreen interfaces, inputs, and
screen/window outputs.
XP is absolute junk for gfx work. As is Photoshop, though few know
any better.
Gary Beeton
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93602AC8...@193.216.69.37>...
>> IFX might hold the candle for animation and image processing,
>> but it's no good if you want accurate colors.
>
> It utterly de3molishes all Windows (lowest common denominator)
> applications in both areas. Which is obviously why AmigaFormat
> said so.
Is that the same review to which you commented that Amiga Format
"pretty much ragged on [IFX] from beginning to end" and gave it a
rating of only 64%?
>> So how do you embed a color profile in IFX?
>
> You aren't seriously saying you don't even have access to the
> program after all this? Try going to "Prefs" (I know, its counter
> intuitive) and see what you find. Specifically the Preview,
> Render, CyberWB Preview Color Adjustment, and Screen/GFX card
> modules.
No such Prefs path. Are you sure you've used IFX before?
--
Gary Beeton
SG
Utter cluessness. Baby steps for the "I can't afford a real computer"
crowd...
1. Double click on IFX
2. Single click on the Prefs button.
3. Single click on the "Preview" button.
4. -- Single click on the custom screen mode and depth button.
5. -- Adjust any of the CyberWB Preview color space adjustments
6. Single click on the "Render" button.
7. -- Single click on any custom tailored Screen/GFX card module.
Now, imagine this for a second...
8. Save your comprehensive customized prefs set via Prefs/SaveAs,
maybe "Cam16"
9. Create a 16th IFX icon by opening Sys:Tools/IconEdit and d&ding the
original icon there.
10. SaveAs something like "IFX Custom color for Digital Cam 16"
11. Set the new icon tooltype to PREFS=Cam16.
Now for some Windows/Mac disbelief...
12. Multitask all 16 tailored instances to utter perfection, all on
their on custom screens and virtual environments (supersets of
"workspaces," for those who can at least understand that far lesser
power concept), or some or all together via customized logical
groupings.
Gary Beeton
> Gary Beeton <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9360B3A1BA0...@24.66.94.159>...
>> > You aren't seriously saying you don't even have access to the
>> > program after all this? Try going to "Prefs" (I know, its
>> > counter intuitive) and see what you find. Specifically the
>> > Preview, Render, CyberWB Preview Color Adjustment, and
>> > Screen/GFX card modules.
>>
>> No such Prefs path. Are you sure you've used IFX before?
>
> Utter cluessness. Baby steps for the "I can't afford a real
> computer" crowd...
>
> 1. Double click on IFX
> 2. Single click on the Prefs button.
> 3. Single click on the "Preview" button.
Single clicking on the "Preview" button will allow you to select a
"Preview module", nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you meant
"single click on the 'Preview Options' button"?
> 4. -- Single click on the custom screen mode and depth button.
> 5. -- Adjust any of the CyberWB Preview color space adjustments
All this does is allow you to select a preview screen mode and make a
gamma adjustment. Is that what you mean by "Adjust any of the
CyberWB Preview color space adjustments"??? There are no other
colour management options available here. Pretty lame.
> 6. Single click on the "Render" button.
> 7. -- Single click on any custom tailored Screen/GFX card module.
Again, no colour management options available here.
> Now, imagine this for a second...
>
> 8. Save your comprehensive customized prefs set via Prefs/SaveAs,
> maybe "Cam16"
"Comprehensive" meaning you've adjusted the gamma...
> 9. Create a 16th IFX icon by opening Sys:Tools/IconEdit and d&ding
> the original icon there.
> 10. SaveAs something like "IFX Custom color for Digital Cam 16"
> 11. Set the new icon tooltype to PREFS=Cam16.
>
> Now for some Windows/Mac disbelief...
>
> 12. Multitask all 16 tailored instances to utter perfection, all
> on their on custom screens and virtual environments (supersets of
> "workspaces," for those who can at least understand that far
> lesser power concept), or some or all together via customized
> logical groupings.
IOW IFX has no colour management options. Thanks for clearing that
up.
--
Gary Beeton
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:34577b4f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
>> > Exactly why PS/Windows's consistent botching is unacceptable.
>> > See the many examples I've posted. I can post 100s more, XP
>> > is the hands down worst gfx OS ever fielded. Its virtually
>> > impossible to do accurate work using it, since every program
>> > will render your work significantly differently. Most,
>> > including OS's built-ins, are just plain off. By a lot.
>>
>> You mean you still don't realize that you forgot to turn
>> off color management in Photoshop?
>
> I know Windows and PS render radically differently,
Naturally, that's the point with color management in PS.
Just click it off and the colors are the same.
> thats the
> point, the platform as a whole blows for gfx.
>
>> IFX might hold the candle for animation and image processing,
>> but it's no good if you want accurate colors.
>
> It utterly de3molishes all Windows (lowest common denominator)
> applications in both areas. Which is obviously why AmigaFormat
> said so.
Regardless, PS is the one with accurate colors - IFX is not.
>> >> > This isn't one instance at a time, color
>> >> > inaccurate WindowsXP running "can't hold a candle to
>> >> > ImageFX [--AmigaFormat]" Photoshop.
>> >>
>> >> Actually in PS6 you can apply a different color space for
>> >> each image within the same document interface, even
>> >> overriding any color profile embedded in the images.
>> >
>> > Same for IFX, obviously, as it can actually multitask proper
>> > instances, unlike jokish $300 XP running $700 PS.
>>
>> So how do you embed a color profile in IFX?
>
> You aren't seriously saying you don't even have access to the
> program after all this? Try going to "Prefs" (I know, its
> counter intuitive) and see what you find. Specifically the
> Preview, Render, CyberWB Preview Color Adjustment, and
> Screen/GFX card modules.
You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
say, ICC color profiles in there.
I don't know what monitor you have, but here are
some Mitsubishi screens:
http://www.necmitsubishi.com/css/downloads/common_mit/iccprofile.h
tm
> BTW, AOS/IFX even works properly on multiple monitors
No, it doesn't work properly at all - it can not render
accurate colors: what you see on your screen will be
different on another screen of a different type.
> (and thus
> so do unlimited custom color instances of IFX and everything
> other app) using multiple gfx card color profiles to create
> complete virtual environments for every screen/monitor attached,
Cool, but you still have nowhere to load color profiles
for your digicam or TFT screen.
Regards...
SG
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> news:34577b4f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns93602AC8...@193.216.69.37>...
>
> >> > Exactly why PS/Windows's consistent botching is unacceptable.
> >> > See the many examples I've posted. I can post 100s more, XP
> >> > is the hands down worst gfx OS ever fielded. Its virtually
> >> > impossible to do accurate work using it, since every program
> >> > will render your work significantly differently. Most,
> >> > including OS's built-ins, are just plain off. By a lot.
> >>
> >> You mean you still don't realize that you forgot to turn
> >> off color management in Photoshop?
> >
> > I know Windows and PS render radically differently,
>
> Naturally, that's the point with color management in PS.
> Just click it off and the colors are the same.
Great, now you get XP's admittedly screwed up color rendition, with no
way to fix it.
> > thats the
> > point, the platform as a whole blows for gfx.
> >
> >> IFX might hold the candle for animation and image processing,
> >> but it's no good if you want accurate colors.
> >
> > It utterly de3molishes all Windows (lowest common denominator)
> > applications in both areas. Which is obviously why AmigaFormat
> > said so.
>
> Regardless, PS is the one with accurate colors - IFX is not.
>
>
> >> >> > This isn't one instance at a time, color
> >> >> > inaccurate WindowsXP running "can't hold a candle to
> >> >> > ImageFX [--AmigaFormat]" Photoshop.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually in PS6 you can apply a different color space for
> >> >> each image within the same document interface, even
> >> >> overriding any color profile embedded in the images.
> >> >
> >> > Same for IFX, obviously, as it can actually multitask proper
> >> > instances, unlike jokish $300 XP running $700 PS.
> >>
> >> So how do you embed a color profile in IFX?
> >
> > You aren't seriously saying you don't even have access to the
> > program after all this? Try going to "Prefs" (I know, its
> > counter intuitive) and see what you find. Specifically the
> > Preview, Render, CyberWB Preview Color Adjustment, and
> > Screen/GFX card modules.
>
> You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
> say, ICC color profiles in there.
Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga displays,
scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has been free to Amigans
for years.
http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
> I don't know what monitor you have, but here are
> some Mitsubishi screens:
>
>
> http://www.necmitsubishi.com/css/downloads/common_mit/iccprofile.h
> tm
>
> > BTW, AOS/IFX even works properly on multiple monitors
>
> No, it doesn't work properly at all - it can not render
> accurate colors: what you see on your screen will be
> different on another screen of a different type.
It can indeed, on a per monitor basis. Better yet datatyping allows
the OS and all your apps to be instantly professionally corrected in
one swoop (and/or independently of datatyping as well). XP is
terribly lacking in this respect; it couldn't be worse. Yes, PS can
be properly corrected with expensive add ons, and then at least you
have one program that renders proper and now completely differently
from all other apps and the OS with no way out.
> > (and thus
> > so do unlimited custom color instances of IFX and everything
> > other app) using multiple gfx card color profiles to create
> > complete virtual environments for every screen/monitor attached,
>
> Cool, but you still have nowhere to load color profiles
> for your digicam or TFT screen.
http://www.targets.coloraid.de/
In conjunction with Amiga ICS, these calibrate displays, scanners, and
printers. In addition to manually calibrating, and since AOS actually
works consistently and properly, Turboprint includes a huge number of
pre-calibrated Truematch UCR already professionally color corrected
tables, for virtually all popular printers.
Windows is too far behind, just look at how poorly Photoshop not only
renders the colors of this image, but how badly it mangles the lines
of the image render itself. I can post literally thousands of
examples that show the same kind of major Windows OS/application
rendering gaffs...
bbq_sgt
>Windows is too far behind, just look at how poorly Photoshop not only
>renders the colors of this image, but how badly it mangles the lines
>of the image render itself. I can post literally thousands of
>examples that show the same kind of major Windows OS/application
>rendering gaffs...
>
>http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
You dope. First you use this screengrab as a way to prove XP's "rendering
inaccuracy", and now you're using it to claim that Photoshop is really the one
that's inaccurate? Your intellectual dyslexia is astonishing.
Not to mention the fact that you have the Photshop canvas zoomed out to 22.6%,
which is not an even pixel boundary. So of course the "lines" look "mangled".
It's simple math. The canvas view does not do any bicubic interpolation when
zooming in and out with the zoom tool. Zooming out on a huge image like the one
in your screengrab is only useful for getting your bearings on a general
location in the image, whereupon you would create a new view of the same image,
except zoomed in to 100% on that region, with ALL the available pixels visible
at 1:1 .
Please leave the professional imaging pontification to people who actually know
what they are talking about...
Bjørnar
news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
>> >> You mean you still don't realize that you forgot to turn
>> >> off color management in Photoshop?
>> >
>> > I know Windows and PS render radically differently,
>>
>> Naturally, that's the point with color management in PS.
>> Just click it off and the colors are the same.
>
> Great, now you get XP's admittedly screwed up color rendition, with no
> way to fix it.
Well then you also admit IFX and AmigaOS can't really compete.
>> >> So how do you embed a color profile in IFX?
>> >
>> > You aren't seriously saying you don't even have access to the
>> > program after all this? Try going to "Prefs" (I know, its
>> > counter intuitive) and see what you find. Specifically the
>> > Preview, Render, CyberWB Preview Color Adjustment, and
>> > Screen/GFX card modules.
>>
>> You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
>> say, ICC color profiles in there.
>
> Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga displays,
> scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has been free to Amigans
> for years.
>
> http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
That's good, I didn't know about it.
But as it says it's currently just for scanners, and application
support is limited.
>> I don't know what monitor you have, but here are
>> some Mitsubishi screens:
>>
>>
>> http://www.necmitsubishi.com/css/downloads/common_mit/iccprofile.h
>> tm
>>
>> > BTW, AOS/IFX even works properly on multiple monitors
>>
>> No, it doesn't work properly at all - it can not render
>> accurate colors: what you see on your screen will be
>> different on another screen of a different type.
>
> It can indeed, on a per monitor basis. Better yet datatyping allows
> the OS and all your apps to be instantly professionally corrected in
> one swoop (and/or independently of datatyping as well). XP is
> terribly lacking in this respect; it couldn't be worse.
You're missing the issue. ICC or CM is not at all about
ajusting colors on your monitor. What good would that do
to a guy with a different monitor than yourself, or displaying
an image captured with a different camera.
>> > (and thus
>> > so do unlimited custom color instances of IFX and everything
>> > other app) using multiple gfx card color profiles to create
>> > complete virtual environments for every screen/monitor attached,
>>
>> Cool, but you still have nowhere to load color profiles
>> for your digicam or TFT screen.
>
> http://www.targets.coloraid.de/
>
> In conjunction with Amiga ICS, these calibrate displays, scanners, and
> printers. In addition to manually calibrating, and since AOS actually
> works consistently and properly, Turboprint includes a huge number of
> pre-calibrated Truematch UCR already professionally color corrected
> tables, for virtually all popular printers.
Cool, but far too limited.
> Windows is too far behind, just look at how poorly Photoshop not only
> renders the colors of this image, but how badly it mangles the lines
> of the image render itself. I can post literally thousands of
> examples that show the same kind of major Windows OS/application
> rendering gaffs...
>
> http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
Easy to explain: error 45 (user-error).
Would you mind posting a screenshot from IFX with the same
22.6% scaling? :)
Regards...
Gary Beeton
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message news:<Xns9363DFF3...@193.216.69.37>...
> > AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> > news:34577b4f.03041...@posting.google.com:
> > > I know Windows and PS render radically differently,
> >
> > Naturally, that's the point with color management in PS.
> > Just click it off and the colors are the same.
>
> Great, now you get XP's admittedly screwed up color rendition, with no
> way to fix it.
You fix it by turning it back on. What do you want, accurate colour
or consistency between different rendering applications? If you want
accuracy then turn colour management on. If you want consistency then
turn it off (in which case ALL applications will display colours
wrong, just like your Amiga).
> > Regardless, PS is the one with accurate colors - IFX is not.
No comment, Steve?
> > You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
> > say, ICC color profiles in there.
>
> Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga displays,
> scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has been free to Amigans
> for years.
>
> http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
That is *SCANNER* color calibration software. It won't do anything to
help your monitor or printer.
> > > BTW, AOS/IFX even works properly on multiple monitors
> >
> > No, it doesn't work properly at all - it can not render
> > accurate colors: what you see on your screen will be
> > different on another screen of a different type.
>
> It can indeed, on a per monitor basis.
Please explain in step-by-step detail how you apply a monitor profile
to IFX. Monitor profile, not a gamma tweak.
> Better yet datatyping allows
> the OS and all your apps to be instantly professionally corrected in
> one swoop (and/or independently of datatyping as well).
Please explain in step-by-step detail how you apply a monitor profile
to a datatype.
> XP is
> terribly lacking in this respect; it couldn't be worse. Yes, PS can
> be properly corrected with expensive add ons, and then at least you
> have one program that renders proper and now completely differently
> from all other apps and the OS with no way out.
Unlike AOS which has NO way of rendering correctly.
> > Cool, but you still have nowhere to load color profiles
> > for your digicam or TFT screen.
>
> http://www.targets.coloraid.de/
>
> In conjunction with Amiga ICS, these calibrate displays, scanners, and
> printers.
What part of "SCANNER Calibration Targets" don't you understand?
> Windows is too far behind, just look at how poorly Photoshop not only
> renders the colors of this image, but how badly it mangles the lines
> of the image render itself. I can post literally thousands of
> examples that show the same kind of major Windows OS/application
> rendering gaffs...
>
> http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
Windows is not at fault for your stupidity.
--
Gary Beeton
SG
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in message news:<34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message news:<Xns9363DFF3...@193.216.69.37>...
>
> No comment, Steve?
Guess you haven't been following the thread...
http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
> > > You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
> > > say, ICC color profiles in there.
> >
> > Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga displays,
> > scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has been free to Amigans
> > for years.
> >
> > http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
>
> That is *SCANNER* color calibration software. It won't do anything to
> help your monitor or printer.
Its for all three.
Gary Beeton
news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
> gbe...@shaw.ca (Gary Beeton) wrote in message
> news:<4c950c59.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in message
>> news:<34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns9363DFF3...@193.216.69.37>...
>> > > Regardless, PS is the one with accurate colors - IFX is not.
>>
>> No comment, Steve?
>
> Guess you haven't been following the thread...
>
> http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
Your inability to understand colour management is duly noted!
>> > > You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
>> > > say, ICC color profiles in there.
>> >
>> > Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga displays,
>> > scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has been free to
>> > Amigans for years.
>> >
>> > http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
>>
>> That is *SCANNER* color calibration software. It won't do
>> anything to help your monitor or printer.
>
> Its for all three.
You've obviously never used ICS. Worse yet, you are incapable of
understanding what it is for even though it is spelled out quite
clearly on the product web pages. Tell you what Steve, go back to
http://www.colorreference.de/ics/ and do a search for the words
'printer', 'display', and 'monitor'. Then when you've failed that
task, go back and search for the word 'scanner'. Report back to us
once you've gotten a clue.
--
Gary Beeton
Bjørnar
news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
> news:<4c950c59.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in message
>> news:<34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns9363DFF3...@193.216.69.37>...
>> > > Regardless, PS is the one with accurate colors - IFX is not.
>>
>> No comment, Steve?
>
> Guess you haven't been following the thread...
>
> http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
I can see no IFX screenshot there, though it wouldn't
matter much as it wouldn't be correct.
However, you have some option in that you can use ICSConvert
to extract ICC color information and embed it as an ICC
profile.
>> > > You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
>> > > say, ICC color profiles in there.
>> >
>> > Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga displays,
>> > scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has been free to
>> > Amigans for years.
>> >
>> > http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
>>
>> That is *SCANNER* color calibration software. It won't do anything
>> to help your monitor or printer.
>
> Its for all three.
The author confirms it's just for scanners:
"It was designed for scanner calibration (and here mainly
reflective flatbed scanners) without monitors as output
devices. You might use it for camera calibration... but
here it will not work 100% correct. It doesn't offer any
printer calibration.
--
Wolf Faust"
Regards...
bbq_sgt
BAMMM!!!!
It's always fun to see Steve discredit himself, as usual. It's even funner to
see him so spectacularly discredited by the very people whom he thinks would
support his nonsensical rantings.
Let's see now...
1. Dave Haynie
2. Thomas Frieden from Hyperion
3. Wolf Faust
Any others I missed?
SG
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
> > gbe...@shaw.ca (Gary Beeton) wrote in message
> > news:<4c950c59.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> >> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in message
> >> news:<34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
> >> > news:<Xns9363DFF3...@193.216.69.37>...
>
> >> > > Regardless, PS is the one with accurate colors - IFX is not.
> >>
> >> No comment, Steve?
> >
> > Guess you haven't been following the thread...
> >
> > http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
>
> I can see no IFX screenshot there, though it wouldn't
> matter much as it wouldn't be correct.
He was wondering how bad XP and PS really are, that pic, and I can
post 1000s of equally horrid XP and PS rendering gaffs, displays the
gruesome answer in shocking fashion.
> However, you have some option in that you can use ICSConvert
> to extract ICC color information and embed it as an ICC
> profile.
>
>
> >> > > You're just ajusting colors, there's nothing like,
> >> > > say, ICC color profiles in there.
> >> >
> >> > Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga displays,
> >> > scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has been free to
> >> > Amigans for years.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
> >>
> >> That is *SCANNER* color calibration software. It won't do anything
> >> to help your monitor or printer.
> >
> > Its for all three.
>
> The author confirms it's just for scanners:
>
> "It was designed for scanner calibration (and here mainly
> reflective flatbed scanners) without monitors as output
> devices. You might use it for camera calibration... but
> here it will not work 100% correct.
"The profile can than be selected in the ICS preferences program and
defines the color correction performed. Also, you can adjust the type
of display the color correction is made for." --Wolf Faust
> It doesn't offer any printer calibration.
He's simply selling his ICS sister product, CMS, which handles the
printer side, for our purposes the acronym distinction is irrelevant.
You thought there was no color professional calibration available for
the Amiga's mountain of professionally color correctable applications,
clearly you were wrong.
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:34577b4f.0304...@posting.google.com:
> news:<Xns9368589...@193.216.69.37>...
>> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
>> news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
>> >> > > Regardless, PS is the one with accurate colors - IFX is
>> >> > > not.
>> >>
>> >> No comment, Steve?
>> >
>> > Guess you haven't been following the thread...
>> >
>> > http://amigapro.com/Support/Screengrab.png
>>
>> I can see no IFX screenshot there, though it wouldn't
>> matter much as it wouldn't be correct.
>
> He was wondering how bad XP and PS really are, that pic,
The pic shows that PS is color correcting, which it
should when CM is turned on.
> and I
> can post 1000s of equally horrid XP and PS rendering gaffs,
> displays the gruesome answer in shocking fashion.
It's pretty shocking that a gfx-artist would display a 22.6%
crop of an image and pretend it's fullsize too. :^)
> >> > Of course there is, professionally calibrating Amiga
>> >> > displays, scanners, and printers with 96-bit precision has
>> >> > been free to Amigans for years.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.colorreference.de/ics/
>> >>
>> >> That is *SCANNER* color calibration software. It won't do
>> >> anything to help your monitor or printer.
>> >
>> > Its for all three.
>>
>> The author confirms it's just for scanners:
>>
>> "It was designed for scanner calibration (and here mainly
>> reflective flatbed scanners) without monitors as output
>> devices. You might use it for camera calibration... but
>> here it will not work 100% correct.
>
> "The profile can than be selected in the ICS preferences program
> and defines the color correction performed. Also, you can adjust
> the type of display the color correction is made for." --Wolf
> Faust
Read the above again.
>> It doesn't offer any printer calibration.
>
> He's simply selling his ICS sister product, CMS, which handles
> the printer side,
There isn't even a product you call CMS, and certainly
you are not suggesting the author is kidding, are you? :^)
> for our purposes the acronym distinction is
> irrelevant. You thought there was no color professional
> calibration available for the Amiga's mountain of professionally
> color correctable applications, clearly you were wrong.
Not at all. ICS is certainly a step in the right direction,
but has nothing in common with, say, the ICC concept - AOS
applications are simply years behind on this development,
and AOS itself has no native CMS at all, while Windows
started to implement this as far back as Win98.
Even so, Wolf Faust tells me it's not a difficult task to
implement full support ICC for his ICS system, and that
it's planned for a future release.
Regards...
Gary Beeton
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> news:34577b4f.0304...@posting.google.com:
>> "Bjørnar" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:<Xns9368589...@193.216.69.37>...
>>> It doesn't offer any printer calibration.
>>
>> He's simply selling his ICS sister product, CMS, which handles
>> the printer side,
>
> There isn't even a product you call CMS, and certainly
> you are not suggesting the author is kidding, are you? :^)
CMS is not a stand-alone product but an integral part of Wolf Faust's
Studio Professional printer driver. It does offer monitor/printer
calibration, but the software hasn't been updated since 13 Nov 1998
so you won't find profiles for any monitors or printers newer than 5
years old. As far as I can tell, nobody sells Studio Pro any more.
It is quite ironic that Steve should be touting the virtues of Studio
Pro's CSM since a) CSM *only* works with Studio Pro (anyone remember
Steve berating Photoshop's CM for not being a system-wide solution?),
and b) Steve doesn't use Studio Pro since it is incompatible with
TurboPrint.
--
Gary Beeton
SG
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> news:34577b4f.0304...@posting.google.com:
>
> The pic shows that PS is color correcting, which it
> should when CM is turned on.
Its color botching. Put PS, XP's picture viewer, and IE all next to
each other showing the exact same file and you'll see 3 signifcantly
different image renditions. Its a major drawback when every program
renders improperly in a different way. That doesn't happen on Amiga,
all renditions are correct--granted its a gfx platform primarily, but
why doesn't MS do something right just for fun?
> > and I
> > can post 1000s of equally horrid XP and PS rendering gaffs,
> > displays the gruesome answer in shocking fashion.
>
> It's pretty shocking that a gfx-artist would display a 22.6%
> crop of an image and pretend it's fullsize too. :^)
Its not a crop, thats the full image. Now we find out you've never
used PS either. PS shows the percentage in the title of the image vs
that same image if the pixels aligned with the screen resolution 1:1.
Both programs in the screen shot are showing the exact same complete
image.
> >> It doesn't offer any printer calibration.
> >
> > He's simply selling his ICS sister product, CMS, which handles
> > the printer side,
>
> There isn't even a product you call CMS, and certainly
> you are not suggesting the author is kidding, are you? :^)
There are several ways to professionally calibrate Amiga printers, one
of which is using his CMS.
> > for our purposes the acronym distinction is
> > irrelevant. You thought there was no color professional
> > calibration available for the Amiga's mountain of professionally
> > color correctable applications, clearly you were wrong.
>
> Not at all. ICS is certainly a step in the right direction,
> but has nothing in common with, say, the ICC concept - AOS
> applications are simply years behind on this development,
> and AOS itself has no native CMS at all, while Windows
> started to implement this as far back as Win98.
Yet Windows displays every image differently from program to program
with no possible way to fix it. Amiga is uncatchably better, there
simply is no way to call perfection and consistency worse that a
different mangle in every program window you care to open.
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
> news:<Xns93692067...@193.216.69.37>...
>> The pic shows that PS is color correcting, which it
>> should when CM is turned on.
>
> Its color botching. Put PS, XP's picture viewer, and IE all
> next to each other showing the exact same file and you'll see 3
> signifcantly different image renditions.
-I- don't see any difference, but naturally there will be
variations when a program uses its own rendering engine
and different dithering algorithms.
It goes without saying that a fast picture browser or a
web browser emplyos different algorithms than a professional
photo-retoucher. In some cases you can even choose which
one to use.
> Its a major drawback
> when every program renders improperly in a different way. That
> doesn't happen on Amiga, all renditions are correct
http://www.fhi-berlin.mpg.de/amiga/ar/ar211/p1-7.HTML
"PPShow has a problem when rendering 24-bit to HAM.
While this is only a marginal problem on HAM8, it shows
up extremely clearly on ECS machines and HAM6 mode. The
result is hard to describe, but diagonal and vertical
lines of high contrast are messy.
Sometimes I really wonder how much gfx work you have done
in your time here. :) Put IFX, PPView, FastJPEG and Visage
side-by-side, try a few different jpeg datatypes and you
will see which one sacrifices quality for speed.
> --granted its
> a gfx platform primarily, but why doesn't MS do something right
> just for fun?
Well, what color profile have you loaded for your monitor on your
XP laptop?
>> > and I
>> > can post 1000s of equally horrid XP and PS rendering gaffs,
>> > displays the gruesome answer in shocking fashion.
>>
>> It's pretty shocking that a gfx-artist would display a 22.6%
>> crop of an image and pretend it's fullsize too. :^)
>
> Its not a crop, thats the full image.
Yes, I meant "scaling".
> Now we find out you've
> never used PS either. PS shows the percentage in the title of
> the image vs that same image if the pixels aligned with the
> screen resolution 1:1.
Sure, I've pointed out the difference in scaling
to you several times in the past weeks.
> Both programs in the screen shot are
> showing the exact same complete image.
Sure, but the two images are obviously scaled differently.
>> >> It doesn't offer any printer calibration.
>> >
>> > He's simply selling his ICS sister product, CMS, which
>> > handles the printer side,
>>
>> There isn't even a product you call CMS, and certainly
>> you are not suggesting the author is kidding, are you? :^)
>
> There are several ways to professionally calibrate Amiga
> printers, one of which is using his CMS.
So you are saying the author is wrong about his own product?
>> > for our purposes the acronym distinction is
>> > irrelevant. You thought there was no color professional
>> > calibration available for the Amiga's mountain of
>> > professionally color correctable applications, clearly you
>> > were wrong.
>>
>> Not at all. ICS is certainly a step in the right direction,
>> but has nothing in common with, say, the ICC concept - AOS
>> applications are simply years behind on this development,
>> and AOS itself has no native CMS at all, while Windows
>> started to implement this as far back as Win98.
>
> Yet Windows displays every image differently from program to
> program with no possible way to fix it.
You can begin by loading your color profiles.
> Amiga is uncatchably
> better, there simply is no way to call perfection and
> consistency worse that a different mangle in every program
> window you care to open.
Here is anohter article you can read about the principles
of color management, why it's important to have a CMS
in a modern gfx environment and how Windows employs ICS2
to combat the problem:
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/color/icmwp.asp
"Hewlett-Packard Co. and Microsoft have created a new
color space, standard RGB (sRGB),
[..]
In addition, both companies have worked with the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to ensure that sRGB is
available to all vendors. sRGB has been the standard
color space since HTML 3.2 and Cascading Style Sheets
(CSS) 1.0,
Regards...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Ok, not much use in that.
Thank's for the update.
Regards...
SG
> > It is quite ironic that Steve should be touting the virtues of
> > Studio Pro's CSM since a) CSM *only* works with Studio Pro
No kidding, TP users have Truematch UCR.
> > (anyone remember Steve berating Photoshop's CM for not being a
> > system-wide solution?), and b) Steve doesn't use Studio Pro
> > since it is incompatible with TurboPrint.
Your "point" makes no sense at all, they are competing
beyond-professional level (in the weak Windows sense) printer driver
systems each with their own independent professional color calibration
systems. How would "compatibilty" with one another make any cognitive
sense at all?
Thomas Peters
bbq_sgt wrote:
Skipper Smith of the PPC development team. The SteveBot tried to lecture him on
PPC design issues.
It was truly hilarious.
Mad Dog
Gary Beeton
news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9369A056...@193.216.69.37>...
>
>> > It is quite ironic that Steve should be touting the virtues of
>> > Studio Pro's CSM since a) CSM *only* works with Studio Pro
>
> No kidding, TP users have Truematch UCR.
You missed the point, as per usual.
[BTW, please excuse my dyslexia. That should have been 'CMS' of
course]
>> > (anyone remember Steve berating Photoshop's CM for not being a
>> > system-wide solution?), and b) Steve doesn't use Studio Pro
>> > since it is incompatible with TurboPrint.
>
> Your "point" makes no sense at all, they are competing
> beyond-professional level (in the weak Windows sense) printer
> driver systems each with their own independent professional color
> calibration systems. How would "compatibilty" with one another
> make any cognitive sense at all?
Let me try to spell it out for you in words simple enough for even
you to understand: If you use Studio Professional you get CMS, but
it only supports *very* old monitors and printers. If you want to
use modern printers you can't use Studio, you *have* to use
TurboPrint. But TurboPrint has no CMS system. So in conclusion, if
you want CMS on your Amiga with modern monitors and modern printers,
you are SOL!
Do you understand the irony of your "support" for Studio's CMS yet???
--
Gary Beeton
SG
> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
> news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
>
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns9369A056...@193.216.69.37>...
> >
> >> > It is quite ironic that Steve should be touting the virtues of
> >> > Studio Pro's CSM since a) CSM *only* works with Studio Pro
> >
> > No kidding, TP users have Truematch UCR.
That part.
> >> > (anyone remember Steve berating Photoshop's CM for not being a
> >> > system-wide solution?), and b) Steve doesn't use Studio Pro
> >> > since it is incompatible with TurboPrint.
> >
> > Your "point" makes no sense at all, they are competing
> > beyond-professional level (in the weak Windows sense) printer
> > driver systems each with their own independent professional color
> > calibration systems. How would "compatibilty" with one another
> > make any cognitive sense at all?
>
> Let me try to spell it out for you in words simple enough for even
> you to understand: If you use Studio Professional you get CMS, but
> it only supports *very* old monitors and printers. If you want to
> use modern printers you can't use Studio, you *have* to use
> TurboPrint. But TurboPrint has no CMS system.
Read above again.
petri...@hotmail.com.invalid
>> BAMMM!!!!
>>
>> It's always fun to see Steve discredit himself, as usual. It's even funner to
>> see him so spectacularly discredited by the very people whom he thinks would
>> support his nonsensical rantings.
>>
>> Let's see now...
>>
>> 1. Dave Haynie
>> 2. Thomas Frieden from Hyperion
>> 3. Wolf Faust
>>
>> Any others I missed?
> Skipper Smith of the PPC development team. The SteveBot tried to lecture him on
> PPC design issues.
> It was truly hilarious.
Not to forger Bernd Mayer (might be misspelled).
Gary Beeton
> Gary Beeton <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93699BC37C0...@24.66.94.159>...
>> AmigaFr...@hotmail.com (SG) wrote in
>> news:34577b4f.03042...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns9369A056...@193.216.69.37>...
>> >
>> >> > It is quite ironic that Steve should be touting the virtues
>> >> > of Studio Pro's CSM since a) CSM *only* works with Studio
>> >> > Pro
>> >
>> > No kidding, TP users have Truematch UCR.
>
> That part.
>
>> Let me try to spell it out for you in words simple enough for
>> even you to understand: If you use Studio Professional you get
>> CMS, but it only supports *very* old monitors and printers. If
>> you want to use modern printers you can't use Studio, you *have*
>> to use TurboPrint. But TurboPrint has no CMS system.
>
> Read above again.
Steve, go read your TurboPrint manual. TP does not do monitor colour
management.
--
Gary Beeton