TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: synchronizing color - not really possible today -- Honey: Didn't you say MACs can solve this?
Subject:Re: synchronizing color - not really possible today -- Honey: Didn't you say MACs can solve this? From:eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:23:16 -0400
David Neeley <dbneeley -at- oddpost -dot- com> wrote on 10/16/2003 12:38:10 PM:
> Excuse me, but what does "light emitting device" or "light
> reflecting device" have to do with the color model?
Screen vs. Print colour will ALWAYS be an approximation. Pigments on paper
absorb light, removing light/colour from the spectrum the viewer perceives.
Phosphors on screens emit light/colour adding to the spectrum the user
perceives.
> The
> fact is that a monitor could presumably be made using
> phosphors that emit in the CMY colors (black isn't
> necessary, since a black component merely would be the
> absence of light from the other colors; this is not
> workable in the chemistry of printing inks, since rather
> than black the combination of CMY too often results in a
> muddy brown--but I digress).
The additive primary colours are blue, green, and red.
The subtractive primary colours are blue, yellow, and red or cyan, yellow, and
magenta.
So, no you couldn't make a computer screen any other way. Not unless you
radically change the design to have the screen reflect instead of transmit. And,
no matter what you do the colours on one medium will always be an approximation
of the colours in the other. Macs just have an advantage because when designing
colours you can enter you CYMK values right away and not suffer any surprises
when the screen values are converted for print. Mac users are insulated from the
CYM to RGB process, but it happens. And as they are designing with CYMK values,
they just blame the monitor and calibrate/adjust it if they're fussed about
on-screen display.
> The primary difference between monitor color and paper
> color results from the more intense hues resulting from
> the transmissive color compared to reflective. Also, the
> RGB model is built upon an additive color model rather
> than the CMYK subtractive one--but again that is an
> implementation detail. Obviously, it is simpler to build
> monitors on a three color model with the simpler math
> involved in additive processes.
It's a little more than an "implementation" detail. Try tell the e-paper people
that's it's just a detail. <lol>
Unless you have power over the laws of physics, no system can be switched from
additive to subtractive colour models.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE LATEST FRAMEMAKER PUBLISHING TOOL?
RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for
competitive pricing or view a live demo at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
