if you give me permission, would like to adapt parts of your explanation to improve the theory section of the page. Go ahead -- I hope, it will be useful.
Why does red + blue look similar to purple? After a lot of training, I can distinguish between the two (now, magenta really looks like red+blue to me). However, it seems bizarre that a CCD can capture the color purple at all. It's certainly not actually emitting purple light, so it must somehow be converting the purple frequencies of light coming from, say, a flower, into magenta. How on earth would this happen? I can grant that a purple light would excite the blue pixels in a CCD, but it's hard to swallow that they'd magically also excite the red pixels in the appropriate proportion. I feel like if I got an explanation of this, everything else would fall into place. Violet (spectral) is perceived to be similar to purple (red + blue) because "green" receptors sensitivity drops faster than "red" receptors sensitivity in the blue-violet range. "Blue" receptors have maximum sensitivity closer to a violet (420nm), and their sensitivity is overall lower than other receptors. So absence of green with red and blue present produces various shades of blue or violet. Blue LED light that we correctly perceive as spectral blue is seen by both "blue" (near maximum) and "red" (far from maximum but nonzero) but not "green" (nearly zero on their curve) receptors.
The PCBs are pretty horrible, but not for those reasons.
Pads for through-hole IC and connectors have multiple places where a trace leaves the pad at a wrong angle, continues toward the nearest pad on the same connector, then turns away from it into direction where it was supposed to go in the first place. In addition to looking sloppy, this increases the probability of solder bridges and overheating, especially if the board is assembled manually or repaired. Many traces going to those pads look so sloppily drawn, I have no idea how to achieve such an effect with any modern PCB design software (and my idea of "modern" starts at http://pcb.sourceforge.net/ ).
The first step of the project was to understand the underlying physics behind LED based artwork. Fundamentally, the eyes are a very odd sensing system. The ears do a frequency based analysis of incoming pressure waves, and report all of the dominant frequencies to the brain for interpretation --- if we hear two frequencies of different pitches, they sound distinct. This isn't quite as true when you talk about harmonics of sounds, as they will start to affect the timbre instead of sounding as a distinct pitch, but the basic idea is that we can pick out independent sounds with different pitches fairly easily.
The eyes, on the other hand, do spatial and frequency-based sensing; however, they throw away much of the information about the specific frequencies detected. For instance, if you look at any particular spot, you will see a single color -- not a spectral map of the complete visible spectrum coming from that point. This is great for the purposes of vision; it would be rather difficult, I think, to walk around while receiving that much information. However, this means that the eye behaves very strangely in the presence of multiple colors from the same location.
The classical example of this effect is the color wheel. You mix red paint and green light, you get what appears to be yellow light. But how is this possible? If yellow is a frequency of light, how does mixing red (620nm) and green (530nm) produce yellow (590nm) light? There is certainly no physical process that does this sort of mixing in general.
In fact, the idea that red and green combine to form yellow is a trick of the mind only. You may think you're seeing yellow light, but the fact is that you are seeing independent red and green light, and your brain is converting that information into the appearance of yellow! Very strange. So, this can explain how a RGB cluster of LEDs can produce most colors of light -- they aren't actually producing those other frequencies of light; instead they are tricking the eyes into thinking that they are producing those other frequencies of light. This trick is summed up in the Chromaticity Diagram (pulled from wikipedia). On this diagram, pure frequencies are displayed along the outer border from 460 to 700nm. As you mix two colors together, you draw a line between their positions on the border, and the ratio of the two tells you the position in the diagram that your apparent color lies. For example, if you combine 520nm green light with 620nm red light in a 50-50 ratio, you will have what appears to be yellow light. Likewise, if you have 620nm red light and 490nm cyan light in a 50-50 ratio, you will have what appears to be approximately white light.
I have never seen a worse explanation of color vision.
It would be sufficient to say this:
Human eyes' colored light sensors cover wide ranges of wavelengths with maximums at red, white and blue, so they can easily see colors of mixed paints (also wide ranges of wavelengths with multiple maximums) and have those colors imitated by LED screens and lights (three very NARROW ranges of frequencies near the maximums of eye sensors' sensitivity) however mixing the two (light from three narrow-band sources is reflected by wide-band paint, then seen by three types of wide-band sensors) produces distorted results because paint's reflectivity of wavelengths outside the lights' narrow bands does not contribute to the impression.
A paint with one of the narrow maximums at, say, cyan, will appear the same as paint without such a maximum if illuminated by a LED light that produces nothing in cyan range where the maximum is present. It's important to mention that in a photo taken under natural light and displayed on a LED screen, paints' colors will appear perfectly normal. This happens because light and camera's sensors cover approximately the same ranges as human eyes' sensors, so for the area covered with paint that has cyan maximum, screen would produce more green and blue light to imitate the impression on
Ugg is smart. Ugg can program a CPU. Two Uggs can program two CPUs. Two Uggs working on the same task program two CPUs. Uggs' program has a race condition. Ugg1 thinks, it's Ugg2's fault. Ugg2 thinks, it's Ugg1's fault. Ugg1 hits Ugg2 on the head with a rock. Ugg2 hits Ugg1 on the head with an axe. Ugg1 is half as smart as he was before working with Ugg2. Ugg2 is half as smart as he was before working with Ugg1. Both Uggs now write broken code. Uggs' program is now slow, wrong half the time, and crashes on that race condition once in a while. Ugg does not like parallel computing. Ugg will bang two rocks together really fast. Ugg will reach 4GHz. Ugg will teach everyone how to reach 4GHz.
Seriously, _THAT_ is what they are concerned about -- counterfeit chips. The most expensive, slow and convoluted way of causing security leaks THAT WOULD NOT EVEN WORK IF PEOPLE KEPT SENSITIVE STUFF AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC NETWORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Why don't they worry about easier ways of causing trouble in a creative way such as, say, painting ships with explosive paints when they are serviced? Or causing trouble in very un-creative ways, what seems to work well anyway?
Last time I have checked (when USSR existed -- I speak Russian but not Chinese) Communists as a matter of policy applied their censorship almost exclusively to what they deemed to be propaganda materials, that they believed to be just that -- incomplete, wrong, or misrepresentation of opinions as facts. I am sure, they would see a year-old version of Wikipedia article on Holodomor as a work of propaganda but current version as merely some data they did not like but wouldn't bother censoring if presented that way except possibly for the list of opinions (mentioning of "cultural elite", reference to political statements and resolutions that labeled it as a genocide) in the article (see the list of differences). And in this case I would agree with this assessment because older version of Wikipedia article was obviously written to promote a certain opinion based on incomplete and misrepresented facts while later edits presented more data and less attempts to force the reader to adopt a certain opinion about the nature of the same event. I was arguing about the same events and their representation earlier on this site, and Wikipedia's then-current version of that page was often referred to by my opponents in their arguments as some kind of authoritative source. If I was editing a "paper" encyclopedia, I would throw out (censor) the first version, too, and I have very little sympathy for Stalinist policies.
Also all governments, regardless of the political systems in their countries, prefer to use secrecy, not censorship when they want to hide raw data from population.
it will heat up, making the earth inhospitable One things a star definitely can't do when changing from yellow to red is heating up -- the surface temperature has to drop for this to happen, color reflects the temperature.
It may increase the total energy output, or transfer more energy to the planets, heating THEM up, but Sun itself will cool down.
Will the gravitational pull get worse as the sun expands, will it stay the same or could we possibly be pushed (either artificially or by said sun) away from it. It can only decrease because the effect of Sun's gravity on Earth only depends on mass between Earth orbit and the center of the Sun. Sun loses mass by emitting matter into space but does not absorb much, and if it expands beyond Earth orbit, the mass outside will cancel itself. This is why there was a hypothesis that Earth orbit will expand.
The electronic maps don't show a gate that separates residential and industrial areas. It's only opened for a couple hours on weekdays in the northern New Jersey city.
Mayor Dennis Elwell says residents on Fifth Street started complaining about trucks clogging their street about a year ago as GPS devices increased in popularity. Some drivers have to call police to open the gate because their trucks are too big to turn around. It looks like they made a gate to shield some gentrified neighborhood from the contact with lower classes, and ended up with a street full of trucks. Solution: open the fucking gate, you stupid yuppies!
You're taking a decision which was prevented an actual life being born and trying to match it to technology. Condoms are a form of technology, so your argument is even less convincing than the rest of the crap religious nuts such as yourself spew on this subject.
Just because some people depend on technology to do things that otherwise would be impossible, things that ignorant luddites don't understand, it does not mean that aforementioned luddites should be allowed to force the idea upon society that those things are bad. This is the same kind of thing as anti-abortion groups running TV commercial announcing "counseling" for nonexistent mental conditions they claim to happen in women after performing an abortion.
There are plenty of things government can do to improve the lives of people (this is why every form of government was invented in the first place), ostracizing people who drive the development of technology and culture by inventing bogus "addictions" associated with their working habits isn't one of them.
HAY GUYZ, I AM ADDICTED TO WRITING SOFTWARE FOR EMBEDDED SYSTEMS IN LINUX ENVIRONMENT, PLZ THROW A ROCK AT ME!
It doesn't makes Gates look any better that he is comparable to the person whom everyone but sycophants for the rich see as one of the worst people in recent history.
Buying a corporations stock on the open market does not put any money into that corporations pockets or support its goals in any way. Of course, it does!
It drives up the stock price, thus allowing the company to use its own stock to buy other companies, issue more stock thus directly getting money from new investors, and do other things that would not be possible if the company's stock price was lower or did not constantly rise.
No, I don't ignore the fact that you know the underlying theory, you state that it is impossible to match screen color to print color, but that is just not true. There are so many screens, screen configurations, printers, ink-types, etc, that it is merely really difficult to match it. However, that does not make it impossible.
No, it is actually impossible. Range of available colors, dynamic range, human perception of reflected light vs. glowing surface, make them really impossible to match except for narrow sets of parameters (say, color temerature and gamma). You still are better off checking the test printout where all limitations are already taken into account.
In a Windows environment (or Mac, for that matter), as much graphics development that is done on that platform series, there are several devices which have been implemented specifically to the target goal of having the print and the screen match identically. Often, this causes looking at uncalibrated screens to seem painful. Btw: How much does your monitor cost? That's a pretty good indication (in some regards, not all)
I don't use my monitor for color matching.
of the quality of Black that you're going to see, as well as the actual Color reproduction. Yes, some shitty monitors are marked really high, so that you want to buy the most expensive, but professionals know all the tells to look at.
Quality of black is a matter of dynamic range. Monitors' dynamic range is far superior to paper -- if you actually wanted to make a monitor look like paper you would have to use a fraction of its range, what would inevitably make it look washed out. Human eyes perceive it differently because high-resolution paper is seen as more "clear" than low-resolution, high-contrast/more gradations image on the monitor, but make no mistake -- those are in no way comparable. More often than not, if you are not dealing with photos you have "best" image for the monitor, "best" image for print, and they will be pretty different from each other. With photos you have to keep details recognizable and match the color temperature, but even when you match those properties, those are not the same images.
Now, having established that you state that it's impossible to match the screen to the print, you then point out that it is impossible to trust the printer, as the printer does it's own color correction. So now we've got machines that don't do what they're told. These must be inexpensive machines for people who don't understand color theory, and print layout, and the like. Hell, the machines in reference probably don't even print all the way to the edge of the paper, silly cheap printers. Okay, let's forget about the cheap printers and focus on Print quality printers. Do these printers still "adjust" your image for you, or do they print the color that you provide? Do several models from several vendors all print the same when provided with the same color code? Why would you choose to "print on whatever printer you have" if you are going to be serious about Print quality? Graphics artists purchase much nicer equipment than the cheap PoS by my desk, so keep that in mind when you advise someone to continually recalibrate their printer, because they'll need to recalibrate at a minimum of once per new cartridge.
I have said no such thing. I have said that IF the driver tried to play tricks while being calibrated, it would mess up calibration process. So the next Windows troll won't tell me that he tried to implement this in Visual Basic, and his Brother All-in-One (or whatever is the most cheapass model now) produced 250 non-converging images.
Now, I agree that this conversation is not really about CMYK support, and that Gimp should not do color correction, it should be a function of the video subsystem, such that the entire system is corrected. I also agree that fanbois who scream GIMP DOESN"T SUPPORT CMYK!!!on2!!!22!@!@# are people who haven't tried to do any CMYK work
A lot of things "work well" as long as everyone agrees that they work well.
Until people start believing that those things are real, and try to maximize their benefit because heck, if it works it must be real, and if you can make it out of thin air, it's ok to make an unlimited amount.
In reality for fiat currency to work banks should be under control so tight, they would have to be nonprofits, and being an executive of a bank would be a very hard job that pays large salary but with no actual power or wealth and huge amount of following massive shitloads of rules. What is not in itself bad, but this is not how US financial system works.
Al Capone exploited retarded laws and enriched himself through fear-mongering. Patent trolls on the other hand... oh shit. Alcatraz seems to be closed for good, but I think, US Government has a perfectly good replacement in Guantanamo, currently being umm... misused.
You however ignore the fact that I know the underlying theory while he merely has practical knowledge of some software use, and misattributes the problem. If someone asked for color calibration software that will work with Gimp, it would be here before Windows trolls started yet another "CMYK!!!" thread, however no one did.
People have asked, over and over again, for the GIMP devs to add CMYK. As I understand it, the devs are concerned about doing it right, without stepping on patents. You don't understand the issue with CMYK.
CMYK is implemented in each and every inkjet printer driver. With all kinds of additional color conversions and dithering that is involved in getting colors from those primitive mechanisms. It's not an issue for more than a decade. What you are talking about is a COLOR CORRECTION for devices, what is a completely different beast.
There is not just one way to do it. CMY is the spectral opposite of RGB, you get that, right? Conversion between RGB and CMY is simple, just invert the values. So, I ask again: what is the K for? If you don't know that, you don't know what the problem is AT ALL.
It was done already in all pronter drivers. Black color's only purpose is increasing dynamic range in luminance without affecting chrominance. All "different ways" are merely the amount of tradeoff between washed-out colors and decreased contrast. It's an old, well-known idea. The same reason why color TV is not 3x bandwidth of black and white TV, except with TV it's also the amount of details.
Here's a hint: it isn't the conversion, per se. It's about the calibration to a specific printer and set of inks. And most of those calibrations are patented. Are you starting to understand the issue yet?
Most likely I understood those issued before you were born.
As I have said, calibration has nothing to do with CMYK. Scanners and monitors are both RGB, and they still have to be calibrated -- except that they usually aren't because people don't care.
The "perfect" calibration procedure existed for decades, too. For a monitor and printer it will be:
1. Take a table filled with color samples covering the full range of expected output. This is sample 1. 2. Scan it with an uncalibrated scanner. 3. Print scanned image on a printer using conversion with all coefficients set to 1. 4. Scan the printout with the same scanner. This is sample 2. 5. Calculate the first coefficients of a transfer functions (in RGB and in CMYK) from comparison between sample 1 and sample 2. 6. Produce sample 3 by applying those values and print it. 7. Scan sample 3. Now for every color you have value scanned from sample 1, sample 2 and sample 3. Use the latter two for interpolation, or all three for nonlinear one. 8. Produce sample 4 and scan it.
No matter how bad your scanner is, after few repetitions this procedure converges on values representing transfer function for all colors in sample 1 to produce identical printout. You can interpolate between them and/or print grids and scan them out of focus to produce additional samples with known changes in brightness and saturation. That expands your function beyond the original range, and allows to interpolate in poorly covered areas.
Same works with a screen and a camera, except this procedure is for uncalibrated camera, but for screens you can use a calibrated colorimeter sensor instead.
There may be shorter procedures, and manufacturers may provide their own data for color profiles to eliminate a need for them, however nothing is more precise and nothing else is guaranteed to work with everything as long as devices don't try to automatically "fix" colors on their own, what would introcuce more variables and keep this from converging.
You can't just 'print it out' to see what it will look like. There isn't just one CMYK, there are many. Depending on what printer you use, things will look different.
You print on whatever printer you have. No software will help you unless you (or someone else at some point) run a calibration procedure described above.
That is why calibration of monitors and printers to the same standard is important. I'm not going to do your research for you, if you want to know what professional use, JFGI. Or ask a cu
Well, you've inadvertantly answered my question, "What is your graphic design background?" question. It is obvious: none. There is software to match screen to print, color meters, special viewing booths with calibrated lighting, all kinds of stuff that any graphics professional knows all about. Which of them are used for graphics editing with Photoshop, by graphics artists? And how well do they work compared to actually getting a print, something that was at some point very expensive, and now isn't?
Look, fanboi, I'm not coming down on GIMP. There are things GIMP does better than Photoshop. I've never had a problem with the interface. I like GIMP and have used it extensively, okay? But take it from someone who has worked in the industry and knows more than you, okay? The CMYK thing IS a big deal, the plugin DOES NOT do everything that graphics professionals need, and even the developers acknowledge that. And conversion between RGB and CMYK is NOT easy. Do you know why? Here's a hint, Cyan is the opposite of red, magenta is the opposite of green, and blue is the opposite of yellow. So, what's the K for? And how much do you put in? And what do you do with the other colors to compensate? What you are describing is a system of linear equations. It's among the easiest things in math. What it really is, is a system of nonlinear equations. Something that just happens to be a thing, first electronic computers were created for. I am not even going to explain that it's actually implemented as interpolation between pre-calculated values, this is one thing that everything graphics-related uses in some form.
Issue a specification of what you actually need (even if it includes color calibration of a monitor using samples and comparison with a camera/meter), and someone will implement it in a week. If no one asked, I guess, no one actually needs all this.
Yes, graphics professional do use CMYK before preprint, to check for color reproduction accuracy. They also use other modes that Photoshop supports but GIMP doesn't, such as duo and tri-tone. There are very few things in computer graphics that are easier than conversions between colorspaces. The first person who needed it and happened to know C would implement it already, so my conclusion is, they are not actually useful in a graphics editor.
You are aware that there are many colors that RGB can create which are not in the printed CMYK color space, right? And I am aware of both the existence of that plugin, and its limitations. It's not an anti-Linux rant (GIMP is not Linux, for one thing) it's a realistic assessment of the situation. If anyone ever actually needed it, it would be done already. The fact is, no monitor properly represent printed colors, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with CMYK, or quality of software. If anyone ever tried to represent an extremely limited dynamic range of printed colors on a monitor, picture would look too washed out, so you still have to actually print the image to know how it will look on paper. If there was a magic way of getting a monitor display printed colors how they look on paper, there would be plenty of software doing so, for any system.
Slashdot Mirror
This board isn't complex or repetitive enough to require autorouting, so for a project like this I would rather do everything by hand.
The PCBs are pretty horrible, but not for those reasons.
Pads for through-hole IC and connectors have multiple places where a trace leaves the pad at a wrong angle, continues toward the nearest pad on the same connector, then turns away from it into direction where it was supposed to go in the first place. In addition to looking sloppy, this increases the probability of solder bridges and overheating, especially if the board is assembled manually or repaired. Many traces going to those pads look so sloppily drawn, I have no idea how to achieve such an effect with any modern PCB design software (and my idea of "modern" starts at http://pcb.sourceforge.net/ ).
Theory
The first step of the project was to understand the underlying physics behind LED based artwork. Fundamentally, the eyes are a very odd sensing system. The ears do a frequency based analysis of incoming pressure waves, and report all of the dominant frequencies to the brain for interpretation --- if we hear two frequencies of different pitches, they sound distinct. This isn't quite as true when you talk about harmonics of sounds, as they will start to affect the timbre instead of sounding as a distinct pitch, but the basic idea is that we can pick out independent sounds with different pitches fairly easily.
The eyes, on the other hand, do spatial and frequency-based sensing; however, they throw away much of the information about the specific frequencies detected. For instance, if you look at any particular spot, you will see a single color -- not a spectral map of the complete visible spectrum coming from that point. This is great for the purposes of vision; it would be rather difficult, I think, to walk around while receiving that much information. However, this means that the eye behaves very strangely in the presence of multiple colors from the same location.
The classical example of this effect is the color wheel. You mix red paint and green light, you get what appears to be yellow light. But how is this possible? If yellow is a frequency of light, how does mixing red (620nm) and green (530nm) produce yellow (590nm) light? There is certainly no physical process that does this sort of mixing in general.
In fact, the idea that red and green combine to form yellow is a trick of the mind only. You may think you're seeing yellow light, but the fact is that you are seeing independent red and green light, and your brain is converting that information into the appearance of yellow! Very strange. So, this can explain how a RGB cluster of LEDs can produce most colors of light -- they aren't actually producing those other frequencies of light; instead they are tricking the eyes into thinking that they are producing those other frequencies of light. This trick is summed up in the Chromaticity Diagram (pulled from wikipedia). On this diagram, pure frequencies are displayed along the outer border from 460 to 700nm. As you mix two colors together, you draw a line between their positions on the border, and the ratio of the two tells you the position in the diagram that your apparent color lies. For example, if you combine 520nm green light with 620nm red light in a 50-50 ratio, you will have what appears to be yellow light. Likewise, if you have 620nm red light and 490nm cyan light in a 50-50 ratio, you will have what appears to be approximately white light.
I have never seen a worse explanation of color vision.
It would be sufficient to say this:
Human eyes' colored light sensors cover wide ranges of wavelengths with maximums at red, white and blue, so they can easily see colors of mixed paints (also wide ranges of wavelengths with multiple maximums) and have those colors imitated by LED screens and lights (three very NARROW ranges of frequencies near the maximums of eye sensors' sensitivity) however mixing the two (light from three narrow-band sources is reflected by wide-band paint, then seen by three types of wide-band sensors) produces distorted results because paint's reflectivity of wavelengths outside the lights' narrow bands does not contribute to the impression.
A paint with one of the narrow maximums at, say, cyan, will appear the same as paint without such a maximum if illuminated by a LED light that produces nothing in cyan range where the maximum is present. It's important to mention that in a photo taken under natural light and displayed on a LED screen, paints' colors will appear perfectly normal. This happens because light and camera's sensors cover approximately the same ranges as human eyes' sensors, so for the area covered with paint that has cyan maximum, screen would produce more green and blue light to imitate the impression on
...for such beacons of national independence as:
1. Poland.
2. Romania.
3. Estonia.
4. Latvia.
5. Lithuania.
6. Georgia.
7. Kosovo.
8. Iraq.
How else can anyone make sure that their governments won't stop licking US boots within two or three decades?
They mean, nations trusted by US... to stop providing fuel when US will decide to destroy the economy of the reactor-using country.
I think, you are stupid.
Ugg is smart.
Ugg can program a CPU.
Two Uggs can program two CPUs.
Two Uggs working on the same task program two CPUs.
Uggs' program has a race condition.
Ugg1 thinks, it's Ugg2's fault.
Ugg2 thinks, it's Ugg1's fault.
Ugg1 hits Ugg2 on the head with a rock.
Ugg2 hits Ugg1 on the head with an axe.
Ugg1 is half as smart as he was before working with Ugg2.
Ugg2 is half as smart as he was before working with Ugg1.
Both Uggs now write broken code.
Uggs' program is now slow, wrong half the time, and crashes on that race condition once in a while.
Ugg does not like parallel computing.
Ugg will bang two rocks together really fast.
Ugg will reach 4GHz.
Ugg will teach everyone how to reach 4GHz.
Have they declared the War on Death yet?
Seriously, _THAT_ is what they are concerned about -- counterfeit chips. The most expensive, slow and convoluted way of causing security leaks THAT WOULD NOT EVEN WORK IF PEOPLE KEPT SENSITIVE STUFF AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC NETWORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Why don't they worry about easier ways of causing trouble in a creative way such as, say, painting ships with explosive paints when they are serviced? Or causing trouble in very un-creative ways, what seems to work well anyway?
Last time I have checked (when USSR existed -- I speak Russian but not Chinese) Communists as a matter of policy applied their censorship almost exclusively to what they deemed to be propaganda materials, that they believed to be just that -- incomplete, wrong, or misrepresentation of opinions as facts. I am sure, they would see a year-old version of Wikipedia article on Holodomor as a work of propaganda but current version as merely some data they did not like but wouldn't bother censoring if presented that way except possibly for the list of opinions (mentioning of "cultural elite", reference to political statements and resolutions that labeled it as a genocide) in the article (see the list of differences). And in this case I would agree with this assessment because older version of Wikipedia article was obviously written to promote a certain opinion based on incomplete and misrepresented facts while later edits presented more data and less attempts to force the reader to adopt a certain opinion about the nature of the same event. I was arguing about the same events and their representation earlier on this site, and Wikipedia's then-current version of that page was often referred to by my opponents in their arguments as some kind of authoritative source. If I was editing a "paper" encyclopedia, I would throw out (censor) the first version, too, and I have very little sympathy for Stalinist policies.
Also all governments, regardless of the political systems in their countries, prefer to use secrecy, not censorship when they want to hide raw data from population.
It may increase the total energy output, or transfer more energy to the planets, heating THEM up, but Sun itself will cool down.
Mayor Dennis Elwell says residents on Fifth Street started complaining about trucks clogging their street about a year ago as GPS devices increased in popularity. Some drivers have to call police to open the gate because their trucks are too big to turn around. It looks like they made a gate to shield some gentrified neighborhood from the contact with lower classes, and ended up with a street full of trucks. Solution: open the fucking gate, you stupid yuppies!
Just because some people depend on technology to do things that otherwise would be impossible, things that ignorant luddites don't understand, it does not mean that aforementioned luddites should be allowed to force the idea upon society that those things are bad. This is the same kind of thing as anti-abortion groups running TV commercial announcing "counseling" for nonexistent mental conditions they claim to happen in women after performing an abortion.
There are plenty of things government can do to improve the lives of people (this is why every form of government was invented in the first place), ostracizing people who drive the development of technology and culture by inventing bogus "addictions" associated with their working habits isn't one of them.
HAY GUYZ, I AM ADDICTED TO WRITING SOFTWARE FOR EMBEDDED SYSTEMS IN LINUX ENVIRONMENT, PLZ THROW A ROCK AT ME!
It doesn't makes Gates look any better that he is comparable to the person whom everyone but sycophants for the rich see as one of the worst people in recent history.
It drives up the stock price, thus allowing the company to use its own stock to buy other companies, issue more stock thus directly getting money from new investors, and do other things that would not be possible if the company's stock price was lower or did not constantly rise.
No, I don't ignore the fact that you know the underlying theory, you state that it is impossible to match screen color to print color, but that is just not true. There are so many screens, screen configurations, printers, ink-types, etc, that it is merely really difficult to match it. However, that does not make it impossible.
No, it is actually impossible. Range of available colors, dynamic range, human perception of reflected light vs. glowing surface, make them really impossible to match except for narrow sets of parameters (say, color temerature and gamma). You still are better off checking the test printout where all limitations are already taken into account.
In a Windows environment (or Mac, for that matter), as much graphics development that is done on that platform series, there are several devices which have been implemented specifically to the target goal of having the print and the screen match identically. Often, this causes looking at uncalibrated screens to seem painful. Btw: How much does your monitor cost? That's a pretty good indication (in some regards, not all)
I don't use my monitor for color matching.
of the quality of Black that you're going to see, as well as the actual Color reproduction. Yes, some shitty monitors are marked really high, so that you want to buy the most expensive, but professionals know all the tells to look at.
Quality of black is a matter of dynamic range. Monitors' dynamic range is far superior to paper -- if you actually wanted to make a monitor look like paper you would have to use a fraction of its range, what would inevitably make it look washed out. Human eyes perceive it differently because high-resolution paper is seen as more "clear" than low-resolution, high-contrast/more gradations image on the monitor, but make no mistake -- those are in no way comparable. More often than not, if you are not dealing with photos you have "best" image for the monitor, "best" image for print, and they will be pretty different from each other. With photos you have to keep details recognizable and match the color temperature, but even when you match those properties, those are not the same images.
Now, having established that you state that it's impossible to match the screen to the print, you then point out that it is impossible to trust the printer, as the printer does it's own color correction. So now we've got machines that don't do what they're told. These must be inexpensive machines for people who don't understand color theory, and print layout, and the like. Hell, the machines in reference probably don't even print all the way to the edge of the paper, silly cheap printers. Okay, let's forget about the cheap printers and focus on Print quality printers. Do these printers still "adjust" your image for you, or do they print the color that you provide? Do several models from several vendors all print the same when provided with the same color code? Why would you choose to "print on whatever printer you have" if you are going to be serious about Print quality? Graphics artists purchase much nicer equipment than the cheap PoS by my desk, so keep that in mind when you advise someone to continually recalibrate their printer, because they'll need to recalibrate at a minimum of once per new cartridge.
I have said no such thing. I have said that IF the driver tried to play tricks while being calibrated, it would mess up calibration process. So the next Windows troll won't tell me that he tried to implement this in Visual Basic, and his Brother All-in-One (or whatever is the most cheapass model now) produced 250 non-converging images.
Now, I agree that this conversation is not really about CMYK support, and that Gimp should not do color correction, it should be a function of the video subsystem, such that the entire system is corrected. I also agree that fanbois who scream GIMP DOESN"T SUPPORT CMYK!!!on2!!!22!@!@# are people who haven't tried to do any CMYK work
A lot of things "work well" as long as everyone agrees that they work well.
Until people start believing that those things are real, and try to maximize their benefit because heck, if it works it must be real, and if you can make it out of thin air, it's ok to make an unlimited amount.
In reality for fiat currency to work banks should be under control so tight, they would have to be nonprofits, and being an executive of a bank would be a very hard job that pays large salary but with no actual power or wealth and huge amount of following massive shitloads of rules. What is not in itself bad, but this is not how US financial system works.
Al Capone exploited retarded laws and enriched himself through fear-mongering. Patent trolls on the other hand... oh shit. Alcatraz seems to be closed for good, but I think, US Government has a perfectly good replacement in Guantanamo, currently being umm... misused.
You however ignore the fact that I know the underlying theory while he merely has practical knowledge of some software use, and misattributes the problem. If someone asked for color calibration software that will work with Gimp, it would be here before Windows trolls started yet another "CMYK!!!" thread, however no one did.
People have asked, over and over again, for the GIMP devs to add CMYK. As I understand it, the devs are concerned about doing it right, without stepping on patents. You don't understand the issue with CMYK.
CMYK is implemented in each and every inkjet printer driver. With all kinds of additional color conversions and dithering that is involved in getting colors from those primitive mechanisms. It's not an issue for more than a decade. What you are talking about is a COLOR CORRECTION for devices, what is a completely different beast.
There is not just one way to do it. CMY is the spectral opposite of RGB, you get that, right? Conversion between RGB and CMY is simple, just invert the values. So, I ask again: what is the K for? If you don't know that, you don't know what the problem is AT ALL.
It was done already in all pronter drivers. Black color's only purpose is increasing dynamic range in luminance without affecting chrominance. All "different ways" are merely the amount of tradeoff between washed-out colors and decreased contrast. It's an old, well-known idea. The same reason why color TV is not 3x bandwidth of black and white TV, except with TV it's also the amount of details.
Here's a hint: it isn't the conversion, per se. It's about the calibration to a specific printer and set of inks. And most of those calibrations are patented. Are you starting to understand the issue yet?
Most likely I understood those issued before you were born.
As I have said, calibration has nothing to do with CMYK. Scanners and monitors are both RGB, and they still have to be calibrated -- except that they usually aren't because people don't care.
The "perfect" calibration procedure existed for decades, too. For a monitor and printer it will be:
1. Take a table filled with color samples covering the full range of expected output. This is sample 1.
2. Scan it with an uncalibrated scanner.
3. Print scanned image on a printer using conversion with all coefficients set to 1.
4. Scan the printout with the same scanner. This is sample 2.
5. Calculate the first coefficients of a transfer functions (in RGB and in CMYK) from comparison between sample 1 and sample 2.
6. Produce sample 3 by applying those values and print it.
7. Scan sample 3. Now for every color you have value scanned from sample 1, sample 2 and sample 3. Use the latter two for interpolation, or all three for nonlinear one.
8. Produce sample 4 and scan it.
No matter how bad your scanner is, after few repetitions this procedure converges on values representing transfer function for all colors in sample 1 to produce identical printout. You can interpolate between them and/or print grids and scan them out of focus to produce additional samples with known changes in brightness and saturation. That expands your function beyond the original range, and allows to interpolate in poorly covered areas.
Same works with a screen and a camera, except this procedure is for uncalibrated camera, but for screens you can use a calibrated colorimeter sensor instead.
There may be shorter procedures, and manufacturers may provide their own data for color profiles to eliminate a need for them, however nothing is more precise and nothing else is guaranteed to work with everything as long as devices don't try to automatically "fix" colors on their own, what would introcuce more variables and keep this from converging.
You can't just 'print it out' to see what it will look like. There isn't just one CMYK, there are many. Depending on what printer you use, things will look different.
You print on whatever printer you have. No software will help you unless you (or someone else at some point) run a calibration procedure described above.
That is why calibration of monitors and printers to the same standard is important. I'm not going to do your research for you, if you want to know what professional use, JFGI. Or ask a cu
Issue a specification of what you actually need (even if it includes color calibration of a monitor using samples and comparison with a camera/meter), and someone will implement it in a week. If no one asked, I guess, no one actually needs all this.