Please give us a 64-bit version of Adobe Color Management Module (CMM)

  • 34
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • (Edited)
There are a lot of people out there that could use a 64-bit version of Adobe CMM. At the very least users of Canon's iPF pro printers, such as the iPF8300 and iPF6300, would love to see this so they can use Canon's excellent print plug-in in 64-bit. The print plug-in is built to use CMM. For many of the same reasons there is a 64-bit version of Photoshop, there should be a 64-bit version of CMM. It's as if Photoshop 64-bit is unfinished -- CMM is an important component for many of us. And if you also use a Canon ipF printer, it is twice as important. I'm sure Canon would love for you to complete and issue the 64-bit version of CMM. There are many of us out here. Please help us out. Thanks.
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 8 years ago

  • 34
Photo of timo goodrich

timo goodrich

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Photo of timo goodrich

timo goodrich

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I hope someone at Adobe is working on the 64 bit CMM
Photo of gary greenwald

gary greenwald

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
this question has gone unanswered at the original adobe CMM forum for over a year, and my emails to adobe have been answered over the years with great speed and help, but not on this one; i've gotten zero response on 64-bit CMM. and yes, even canon does not understand nor know from adobe what their plans are.

for now, isn't there a alternate workaround? i thinki read somewhere that you can convert the image's colorspace within photoshop. by using the CONVERT TO PROFILE command, and then choosing your paper/ink custom profile under DESTINATION SPACE, and then choosing relcol or perceptual under INTENT, and this way you can enable USE BPC here. i just dont know which ENGINE would best be used, adobe ace, adobe cmm, or ms.
so if one can convert the image within photoshop using BPC to the printers custom profile, then the canon plugin doesnt need to use BPC itself (and adobes cmm).
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 822 Reply Likes
We'll go ask the color coretech team about it and let you know.
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Chris, that would be great. A lot of people are interested in seeing Adobe move forward on this a fill this gap in the software.
Photo of gary greenwald

gary greenwald

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
thank you chris, it is the one thing keeping me in xp32 land and not moving over to win7-64 until i know theres either CMM64 coming, or a workaround thats possible.
if adobes NOT releasing a 64-bit version and CMM is being phased out, i would hope that canon & adobe would converse on the topic since it affects all canon iPF owners who want the best possible prints, and then canon could not pin their hopes on adobe releasing it, and they could then try another way of resolving the BPC issue.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 822 Reply Likes
How are you using the Adobe CMM? Is it really that important to your work?

(sorry, gotta justify this to some managers)
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Maybe Gary can respond as well, but it is key to unlocking all the potential image quality and color control of Canon's Photoshop print plug-in.

"The (Canon) iPF8300, iPF6350 and iPF6300 come bundled with a new Print Plug-In for Photoshop® and support for Adobe Colour Management Module, enabling features such as Black Point Compensation. Through the Photoshop Plug-In, each new model allows 16-bit RGB images edited in Photoshop to be sent directly to the imagePROGRAF printers, preserving smooth and high gradation."

There are versions of the plug-in for both 32-bit and 64-bit Photoshop. (I work in 64-bit). However, the excellent plug-in's benefits are limited in the 64-bit version because it can no use CMM because there is no 64-bit CMM.

With a 64-bit CMM it would be the final piece in unlocking all the benefits of a 64-bit workflow.
Photo of gary greenwald

gary greenwald

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
- canon has a photoshop plugin for all of its iPF printers, and for both pc and mac. this plugin bypasses the standard print engine that comes with windows, and with that direct link it is possible for the iPF series to print beyond 8-bit, as well as other features just not possible using the standard windows print engine because of its limitations.
since canon and epson account for 'most' of the large format printers from 17"-60", this means a large number of people are using canon printers and photoshop together. and of that number, most are also using the canon photoshop plugin in order to take advantage of wider-than-8bit print gamut, and those other great perks of the iPF lineup.

- within that canon plugin is a 'conversion' section, where someone converts their images original gamut (say adobeRGB or prophoto) into the printers gamut (whether they are using a generic profile that came with their printer or paper, or they custom profile their paper/ink combos themselves).

- in that conversion section of the canon plugin (from photos profile to actual printer profile), are the typical gamut-conversion options of 'perceptual, saturation, or relcol'. and under those choices is the much-adored 'use BPC' checkbox, which as you know is critical when doing most conversions, for without black point compensation theres a noticable shift or loss in the low-end.

- canon has one requirement for someone to use BPC for correct conversions - you must have adobes CMM installed, for that is what does the conversion. without adobe CMM installed all iPF users cannot use BPC, and thus, cannot get an optimum/correct print.

- so adobe CMM exists in 32bit, but not 64bit. so all 64bit users cannot enable BPC on their $xxxx printers, which is a shame.

- theres been threads about this BPC issue in dozens of posts going back 2 years in many photo or print forums, and there are reviews which mention how great the ipf printers are, but they also mention the problem with BPC as one of the weak points.
also, myself and others have contacted canon, but their hands are tied as far as how much they can do, they have said they can only mention it to adobe but of course they cannot force your hand, as neither can we. but i believe certainly adobe knows the limitations of the windows print engine, and since we are only as strong as our weakest link, it is nice to remove that link from the workflow chain.
so perhaps CMM is going by the wayside as to convert the program is a major task for adobe, or there is little need for it outside of us canon users, but, though it is a single need, its one which affects all canon ipf users, because canons programmers cannot do any more then what theyve done.
so without CMM-64, it leaves us win7-64 users (and mac i believe as well tho i cannot verify myself) with our largeformat canons at a dead end, and if we were a crowd getting smaller as time passes, it would be ok, but this is a future event that the print world is moving into, not out of. we all have to move to 64bit, and we all have to use canons plugin to get over 8-bit printing and other features.
if it is not feasible to work on a CMM-64, then i would ask, beg, bribe, adobe to work with canon, and find another way, as in giving canon the snippets of coding 'just' for doing the BPC conversions, or helping them with a workaround. for i would think that the base of photoshop64 and canonipf users is only going to grow with each season, and thus more people have a need for it. again, if it is up to canon to develop their own way to do it without adobes CMM, i hope adobe can at least give them some help with it.

thanks again, sorry its drawn out but didnt want to miss any points if a 3rd-party reads this.
Photo of keith cooper

keith cooper

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've been doing quite a bit of testing with the iPF8300 on the Mac, and it's a bit of a pain to have to remember to start up 32 bit Photoshop if I want to print using BPC and in a similar way to other PS printing.

Not as bad as being stuck in 32bit OS like the windows people, but a definite gap
Photo of andrewthedigitaldog

andrewthedigitaldog

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
> canon has one requirement for someone to use BPC for correct conversions - you must have adobes CMM installed, for that is what does the conversion. without adobe CMM installed all iPF users cannot use BPC, and thus, cannot get an optimum/correct print.

So what CMM do they use? They can implement BPC (its not something only Adobe provides). Shouldn’t Canon be reasonable for BPC in their export module?
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 819 Reply Likes
Adobe did document the BPC logic in a white paper many years ago.
Available from
http://www.color.org/AdobeBPC.pdf and other locations if you do a google search.
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Without a 64-bit Adobe CMM, Canon uses an "OS Standard CMM" for it's ICC conversion engine in the 64-bit print plug-in, and it does not have black point compensation.

As per the Canon iPF 8300 printer manual:

"Adobe CMM needs to be installed in order to use ICCv4 profiles. Refer to Using Adobe CMM."

and

"Adobe CMM is a color conversion engine made by Adobe. Using Adobe CMM makes it possible to obtain uniform color conversion results and to use the black point compensation function."

and

"Adobe CMM is required in order to use the black point compensation function." (it says this about 3 or 4 times in different ways).
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 644 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes
>>Without a 64-bit Adobe CMM, Canon uses an "OS Standard CMM" for it's ICC conversion engine in the 64-bit print plug-in, and it does not have black point compensation.

What CMM? There are several. The OS Standard CMM on Mac and Windows isn’t the same.

These CMM’s can utilize BPC, someone has to write that into them. IOW, BPC is not exclusive to Adobe CMM (although they brought BPC’s needs in a CMM to everyone’s attention.

>"Adobe CMM needs to be installed in order to use ICCv4 profiles. Refer to Using Adobe CMM."

OTW Canon isn’t providing a CMM with BPC and since Adobe’s has this, here’s one way to implement BPC. As for V4 profiles, the best thing you can do today is avoid them. Off hand I don’t know of any current ICC profile building solution from say X-Rite or DataColor that fully uses V4 spec (even the new i1Profiler doesn’t use PRMG) so these are V2 profiles in sheep’s clothing. More often than not, V4 profiles produce more problems than V2 (like sum dots due to various bugs). IOW, not only are V4 profiles not ready for prime time today, its got nothing to do with CMM’s or BPC.

While it would be lovely for Adobe to update the CMM for 64-bit, if you really think its necessary within the Canon plug-in, you should be asking them why the only depend on ACE and expect Adobe to update their CMM for their driver.

I also don’t see why you could not use ACE within Convert to Profile and then set the driver for no color management. Its not an ideal fix but it would work.

Maybe Adobe will be generous in their time and engineering costs to update ACE for 64-bit. But other than helping out Canon, is there a compelling reason to do so?
Photo of gary greenwald

gary greenwald

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
>"While it would be lovely for Adobe to update the CMM for 64-bit, if you really think its necessary within the Canon plug-in, you should be asking them why the only depend on ACE and expect Adobe to update their CMM for their driver. "

'yes' or 'no' would be fine for us.
i had mentioned that people have asked for over a year in multiple forums for its future, including canons own cmm forum from last year. but whether via tech sup emails or forum posts, nothing was heard.
if yes, great, but if no, that is fine too, i only asked that perhaps adobe could give some help to canon regarding it. canons own tech support last autumn told me they just were assuming adobe would release a 64b cmm, and if not, well, they hadn't reached that step yet because they too did not know what adobe would do, they were, like us, just waiting to hear yea or nay, for we naturally all hope for the best outcome but we can accept the worst and move on.

>"I also don’t see why you could not use ACE within Convert to Profile and then set the driver for no color management. Its not an ideal fix but it would work."

yes, i had mentioned that workaround, as i do imagine that is a proper workaround, i do believe it would be perfectly the same outcome, no? certainly what we can do until canon made their next move based on adobes decision. i definitely agree adobe should not port CMM if this is one of only a few reasons anyone needs to bring it into the future. i certainly have never installed it before, nor would i if it were not for this. apparently calculating bpc is one of the more complex issues in the colorspace conversion math.

this is a new forum where we are asked for our hopes and wishes in photoshop, we post and cross fingers, appreciating the chance to be heard,

the adobeBPC pdf chris links to above is very handy, and if there is no CMM-64 then i hope to forward that to canons support, as it seems to provide the actual math models for conversion and should be something for canon to work with in creating their own implementation of BPC.
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Andrew writes, >"What CMM? There are several. The OS Standard CMM on Mac and Windows isn’t the same."

That's just what it says in the Canon software. I presume it is different for every OS, like you suggest -- different for MAC, different for WIN and neither as good as Adobe CMM.

Andrew also writes, >"While it would be lovely for Adobe to update the CMM for 64-bit, if you really think its necessary within the Canon plug-in, you should be asking them why the only depend on ACE and expect Adobe to update their CMM for their driver."
and
>"Maybe Adobe will be generous in their time and engineering costs to update ACE for 64-bit. But other than helping out Canon, is there a compelling reason to do so? "

I'm not sure why you are so aggressively protesting this request. What do you care if Adobe updates a bit of software that I and many others would gratefully use? Why do you care? You don't use it or need it, so the rest of us can just go to blazes? I suppose you don't use Canon printers, or with all your expertise in this area you've got something else worked out. Bully for you. But for me and for others this would be great to have. There is no comparable alternative and you're not constructively offering us one. Why would you want to actively obstruct people getting something they need? Do you have something against me, do you have something against Canon? Does it harm you, your own product offerings, or your clients in any way? I just don't understand your behavior.

Canon's Photoshop print plug-in using Adobe CMM works really well in 32-bit. It is an excellent piece of software, and a real step forward in performance for these printers and provides full 16-bit print output (it won't with Andrew's ACE within Convert-to-Profile "fix") and delivers excellent usability. This level of performance is just not available to those of us that use 64-bit Photoshop and OS. Adobe in their wisdom created a 64-bit version of Photoshop and I am pleased and grateful that they did. For the same reasons that 64-bit is valuable in Photoshop, a 64-bit Adobe CMM is also valuable and it would allow me to maximize the quality of my print output from Photoshop. Yes, there is most definitely a compelling reason to do so.

Yes, it would be "lovely for Adobe to update the CMM for 64-bit". But they would not be doing it so they could be "helping out Canon". Canon isn't asking for this. I am asking for it, Gary is asking for it, Keith is asking for it, many others have asked for and about it, and many others still have lamented about not having it. No, it is NOT to help out Canon. It is to help out ME and thousands of other loyal Adobe customers who also use Canon printers.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 644 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes
> i do believe it would be perfectly the same outcome, no?

Yup. Plus at least you could decide upon a rendering intent before invoking the Canon plug-in (assuming you didn’t first setup a customized Proof Setup).

Look, if updating ACE for 64-bit is easy and inexpensive, I’ll bet Adobe will do it. But if this is only a benefit for Canon, well its their plug-in. Its their job.

Or maybe better, Apple will build BPC into their OS CMM, then MS would have to (maybe). But both companies these days don’t appear to care squat about color management.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 644 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes
>I'm not sure why you are so aggressively protesting this request.

I’m not protesting the request, I’m trying to be realistic. The issue here is Canons. Its their export driver. If you use the Print dialog in Photoshop and a standard print driver, you will get ACE and BPC. So lets be honest here. Do you really think its up to Adobe to spend the money to build a 64-bit CMM for Canon? If they do it, great. I have a Canon iPF 6300. That be nice. But its not free. I suggest the push should be towards Canon, not Adobe. Canon’s text above makes it sound like its Adobe’s responsibly and that’s simply not the case. They (Canon) decided to build an Export module instead of going through Adobe’s Print path (which is kind of useful, no question). For them to now dump this BPC issue on Adobe doesn’t wash. They are just as able to write their own CMM with BPC. Its not a proprietary Adobe technology.

Or maybe you guys can come up with a collection to pay the Adobe engineering here? Again, be reasonable and understand the issue from Adobe’s as well as Canon’s perspective. Besides this Canon driver where does Adobe benefit from updating the CMM to 64-bit?

You want Adobe to do this? Make a compelling argument for it. It ain’t free. As someone who’s worked as a beta and alpha for them a very long time, I can tell you that you need to make a compelling argument for features you need and want. Thus far, I don’t see it, especially when this is Canon’s doing.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 644 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes
> I suppose you don't use Canon printers

You know the old saying about assumptions? In this case, you’re making an @ss of yourself. Chill. I own a Canon printer (and several Epson’s with their own issues with their print drivers). And yes, I can send 16-bit data though those drivers (I’d love to see any benefit to doing this today)
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Just a supposition. However, it is not clear you are familiar with Canon's software.

While you can send 16-bit data to the regular canon print driver, it will only output 8-bit to the printer. To send 16-bit to the Canon printer, you must use Canon photoshop print plug-in.

In addition to 16-bit output, various additional enhanced features are provided in the Print Plug-In for Photoshop, but are not available through the standard print driver. Quoting Canon's own description of the Plug-In:

This export module allows 16-bit image processing, preserving the expanded color spectrum and high gradation of the original file. The Print Plug-in reduces the possibility of incorrect settings, by providing an integrated interface for print settings in Photoshop and the printer driver, enabling efficient production. In addition, the plug-in supports an Adobe Color Conversion Module (CMM) and proof printing is now possible by simulating the colors produced by printing presses.

Adobe CMM support
Proof printing support
High-Precision Text/Line mode support
High-Precision Photo mode support
New image processing technology
Support for commercial profile creation tools
Photo of gary greenwald

gary greenwald

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
well, chris said to make my case, and i made it respectfully explaining the steps and final reason. on the stand you must get prodded and poked a bit with questioning from uninvolved third-parties, it helps us explain our footing perhaps a bit better.
although, in defense, we must remember this is not a photography forum or printer forum, where we all ping-pong our opinions and 'knowledge of the facts' which is pleasant when done respectfully and play devils advocate with each other.
this is a new special forum where we get to sit on santas lap and ask him what we want this season, and we are happily giving our wishlists, so i think some posters might be offended if, when on santas lap, someone comes up and says 'what do you need THAT for kid.'
of course, i shouldnt speak if i then end with 'but i am not speaking for myself', but i just wanted to point it out in case it turns into a .tiff between people here.
Photo of timo goodrich

timo goodrich

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I don't understand why Andrew is here. I ask him this, Why then did Adobe make the 32bit cmm for canons plug in?
Photo of gary greenwald

gary greenwald

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
i believe adobes cmm isnt specifically for canons plugin, it has been out many years and is a color engine for graphic 'programs' to use in order to do color conversions, saving that 'program' the hassle of coding/creating its own internal color engine, and also providing a standard so that you have a single point by which to do conversions, so that theres no differences across the board with your graphic programs. it might be seeing its EOL apparently as it is depended on less and less outside of adobes own nest of programs. i had no real reason for it until this canon plugin.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 764 Reply Likes
Adobe made the CMM so third parties could have their applications match results with Adobe applications. Canon using it wasn't even in the picture at the time.
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
"I’m not protesting the request, I’m trying to be realistic."

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be "realistic" on something that doesn't matter to your work and doesn't affect you. Why bother and waste your time? You're not really helping anyone.

"The issue here is Canons. Its their export driver. If you use the Print dialog in Photoshop and a standard print driver, you will get ACE and BPC."

But you will not get 16-bit print output. Only 8-bit output. That's part of the benefit of using the Canon's Photoshop Print Plug-in. It's just not the same.

"Do you really think its up to Adobe to spend the money to build a 64-bit CMM for Canon?"

Again it's not for Canon. It's for Adobe customers. The 32-bit CMM was not produced for Canon, it was produced for Adobe's customers. It is the same for a 64-bit version.

I have no problem if Adobe asks Canon for a contribution. It will help customers of both companies. If was up to Adobe to spend the money to update the 32-bit version, which is offered for free, why should the 64-bit version be different? I agree that it is not costless to develop -- that goes for both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I don't suspect that it is enormous (the 32-bit version is offered for free after all). To be honest, I'd be willing to pay a nominal price to get it as would provide me with convenience and quality (but it might seem to some a bit miserly of Adobe to give the 32-bit one for free and charge for the 64-bit one).

"Besides this Canon driver where does Adobe benefit from updating the CMM to 64-bit".

Where does Adobe benefit from updating the 32-bit CMM? Does not the 64-bit CMM generate the same types of benefits? But beyond those benefits, Adobe would benefit from the creation of Goodwill, which is an aspect of their business and brand that is uniquely valuable. Producing the 64-bit CMM version will create Goodwill in the market and user community. Perhaps even more important, it will create grateful, content, happy and ultimately loyal Adobe customers. I would suspect that the 64-bit users are more intensive, and on average more professional, users of Adobe products -- and therefore are a core component of Adobe's customer base. Happy, content and grateful customers. Adobe should know that there is nothing more valuable, and no greater benefit, than that.
Photo of timo goodrich

timo goodrich

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
So if the 32bit cmm was not just for canon plug in's . then nether would the 64bit, right? You see were I going with this.
Photo of timo goodrich

timo goodrich

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Bons right! I really like the way you put that! Thanks for saying what I wanted too.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 644 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes
Bon’s basically doesn’t know what he’s talking about! He’s got want bumps for BPC in ACE but has he done any science to see the results? I have.

I took an iStar target, which has 567 colors carefully distributed through RGB color space, converted it using ACE with BPC and Apple CMM (which doesn’t have BPC and is what Canon plug-in uses on OS X), and ran a deltaE report, in ColorThink Pro. The results:

--------------------------------------------------

dE Report

Number of Samples: 567

Delta-E Formula dE2000

Overall - (567 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.10
Max dE: 0.66
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.16

Best 90% - (509 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.07
Max dE: 0.35
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.11

Worst 10% - (58 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.44
Max dE: 0.66
Min dE: 0.35
StdDev dE: 0.08

--------------------------------------------------

The MAX (worst, single patch) difference is 0.66 dE, INVISIBLE. The worse 10% difference is invisible. If you ran an image though either CMM, you would see ZERO differences on the print.

Bon’s should read up on what BPC is for. It was designed way back in 1998 or so to fix a hole (a problem) with some ICC profiles that do not map source to destination black properly. Adobe fixed a hole in the ICC spec so to speak to fix piss-poor profiles.

The profile used above for this test was one built with X-Rite’s i1Profiler (actually a beta) for my Canon iPF6300 using Luster paper (custom media setting). Its a good profile. It doesn’t benefit at all from BPC. It maps black as it should. BPC provides nothing useful here.

So kids, should Adobe update the CMM for 64-bit? Fine, but you have to make the argument for them to do so. And if you have such want bumps, base em on some solid testing and science. You have some piss poor ICC output profiles for your Canon that needs BPC? Send to me, I’ll run the testing as above but then ask yourself, why are you using a piss poor ICC profile that doesn’t map black correctly?

You want a test sending 16-bit data though next? Because the delta’s are going to be tiny too.

Less religion, a bit more science please, certainly before you go and get pissy towards the poster.
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Wow. I really don't know why you have such an axe to grind over this. Your level of vindictiveness is astounding. I don't understand your motivation here. Is there a vested interest somewhere or just arrogance? Whatever it is you've lost the semblance of objective credibility.

People are using "piss-poor" profiles. Yes, I guess that is true. Lot's of people use what is available, and it may be "piss-poor". It's not a crime. Some people just don't have the time and resources to develop perfect custom profiles for everything they do. Maybe they just don't have the benefit of your learned guidance. Whatever the case, wouldn't it be great, therefore, for all these people to have the CMM to "fix piss poor profiles" that they may have no choice but to use? They might not even know that the profiles they have are "piss-poor". it would be great to have this as an easy fix for them. At the very least, if you accept the efficacy of your work-around and alternative fixes (which I don't), having a 64-bit Adobe CMM is a big convenience. And isn't the point of software to make our lives easier and to save time -- and we all know "time is money".

Again, the same reasons why there is a 32-bit CMM are the same reasons why a 64-bit CMM is valuable. Are you also suggesting therefore, that the 32-bit version of Adobe CMM is a waste of time? Having a consistent color workflow across everything and making it easy IS valuable and worthwhile -- and it's great to have that for 64-bit as well as 32-bit. And in spite of your dismissal of version 4 ICC profiles, they are used and it would great to be able to use them if that is what I have. Adobe CMM is required to use them. Again, it saves time and effort -- and money. It is convenient and saves time, which again is the point of software and improvements to software. Plug and play. Unlike you, there are a lot of people that don't want to delve into all the nitty gritty details of color management, don't want to work at it and think about it all the time, and want software to handle it -- even if some of the components are, in your opinion, "piss-poor". An Adobe 64-bit CMM is simply part of making this all work for people. Make my workflow, consistent, seamless and easy.

Furthermore, your artificial construction above notwithstanding, evidence using the 32-bit CMM with Canon's Photoshop Plug-in indicates that there is a difference between the output of the standard print driver and Canon's plug-in. I've seen this with my own eyes. Whether that is due to "piss-poor" profiles or lame version 4 profiles, 16-bit vs 8-bit output, or just real advances in printing software embodied in Canon's plug-in, I don't know. I just know that with Adobe CMM it all works and I really don't have the time to waste or the inclination to figure out which it is. Others also report visible improvements using the print plug-in. It works and Adobe CMM is part of that -- and it would be great have Adobe CMM play that same constructive and productive role in my 64-bit workflow using the Photoshop print plug-in.

Maybe you want to mess with the "science", and the data, and the math going on behind the color management scene, but there a lot of people in this profession like me who really prefer not to be bothered with all that (and quite frankly I almost certainly have a much larger background and training in math than you do). We want to focus on the creative work itself. Adobe's biggest contribution is that they continually work to allow us to do just that. Every update of Photoshop and the other Creative Suite components increasingly allows me to focus on the creative process and makes my life easier. The update of Adobe's 64-bit CMM is another step in that continuing evolution, and another contribution to the valuable role Adobe plays in our profession.
Photo of Scott Martin

Scott Martin

  • 197 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
I agree, a 64 bit (Mac and Windows) Adobe CMM would be a big help to Canon large format printer users. iPF users love using the Photoshop Printing Plug-in that relies on Adobe's CMM for BPC and v4 profile support. Canon Japan has a huge mess to deal with in their country right now which will delay a lot of things for some time. It may not be Adobe's job to provide this CMM (as Andrew points out) but if it were feasible for Adobe to do so, I know a large percentage of Canon iPF users would greatly appreciate it, and use it everyday.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 644 Posts
  • 119 Reply Likes
So here’s Bon’s take: I want a 64-bit CMM. You have one now (otherwise the driver wouldn’t convert data for output).

BUT I want the Adobe CMM because it has BPC: BPC is useful for piss-poor profiles whereby black mapping is goofy.

So what profiles are you using Bon? Because here are the results of using ACE with BPC and using Apple CMM without (as I did above) but this time, instead of the i1P profile, I used the high quality Glossy paper profile supplied by Canon:

dE Report

Number of Samples: 567

Delta-E Formula dE2000

Overall - (567 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.10
Max dE: 0.70
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.15

Best 90% - (509 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.06
Max dE: 0.32
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.10

Worst 10% - (58 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.41
Max dE: 0.70
Min dE: 0.32
StdDev dE: 0.07

--------------------------------------------------

Once again, you need to prove that with Canon’s profiles (or X-Rite’s among others) there is any need for BPC because the current CMM the plug-in uses IS 64-bit.

You are in search of a solution looking for a problem. The problem doesn’t exist, at least with Canon and X-Rite’s profiles. The black mapping without BPC is the same as with.

So what profiles are you using whereby you state that BPC is so necessary that Adobe needs to update a 64-bit CMM?
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 822 Reply Likes
BPC does not just correct for bad profiles -- it fills a gap in the ICC profile spec. for all correctly built profiles. Yes, it's necessity varies with different profiles, but it is still needed in many cases.

But I'm curious if there is any demand beyond just using it with Canon's print plugins?
Photo of Boncratious

Boncratious

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Chris-

I can only speak to how I would use it. I would just presume that it would be used in 64-bit workflows the same way it is used in 32-bit workflows. I would look to how other people are using the 32-bit CMM. I am sure there are people that would welcome it and are just using cumbersome workarounds now. I also presume that there are a lot of people that just don't ask for what they could use, or know that there is a facility for making such requests. Users of 64-bit systems are clearly on the rise. Recent data indicate that almost half of all Win7 installations is 64-bit. (Vista was only 11%, and XP 64-bit was only about 1%). This combined with ever increasing file sizes, one can see that the demand for, and potential users for, 64-bit applications is rapidly increasing. I suspect that a 64-bit CMM is more a matter of "when" rather than "if". Sooner or later 64-bit will be the norm. As with Photoshop 64-bit, early adopters of 64-bit platforms would applaud Adobe's commitment to 64-bit with an update of the CMM.

Finally, I like to say that I think it is to Adobe's credit that they actively listen to their customers and seek to address their needs. One wishes that more companies had such open engagement with their customers. Thank you.