Why do you need to unpack in /usr/bin and then drag the unpacked file to your username home directory? You can unpack it anywhere. I unpacked it to the Desktop. /usr/bin contains executables, why shouldn't the Argyll executables stay there if they are unpacked there?
If you install dispcalgui to avoid dealing with the command line, where does it want the Argyll executables
Launch dispcalGUI. If it cannot determine the path to the Argyll CMS binaries, it will prompt you to select the location manually on first launch.
Geekiness is so damn irritating it makes you want to go back to BASIC.Technical ineptness is so damn irritating, it makes you want to not bother releasing software in the first place...
You are right, that is confusing and I think any normal reading of it is contradictory.Happy to improve the clarity of the documentation, but you'll have to point out what you think is contradictory - I'm not seeing it.
[ For someone not at all familiar with the command line environment, I'm sure it's all a bit bewildering - but they need to either get to grips with it, or not go down that path at all. ]
Happy to improve the clarity of the documentation, but you'll have to point out what you think is contradictory - I'm not seeing it.
Quoting MarkM<As I mentioned, I haven't used dispalgui, but the docs suggest that it will ask you where the Argyll executables are if it can't find them. This would be nice because it means you might be able to put the folder anywhere you please and simply tell dispalgui the location when it starts up. This is from: http://dispcalgui.hoech.net
Quote
Launch dispcalGUI. If it cannot determine the path to the Argyll CMS binaries, it will prompt you to select the location manually on first launch.>
Using my amazing reasoning powers, I just unpacked the Argyll tar to the Desktop and moved the resulting folder to Applications. Then I installed the dispcalgui.dmg which just gave me a window of apps and aliases, so I selected them all and moved them to a folder called, wait for it, dispcalgui, and moved that to Applications. Opening that folder in Applications I clicked on the dispcalgui icon and the app asked me where Argyll was, so I told it and it was happy. I probably could have put the Argyll bin file in /usr/bin, but this works nicely without doing anything.
At least on a Mac, it's no motte difficult than any other app, just an additional two steps.
By the way, you can't unpack the Argyll tar in /usr/bin, the mac won't let you, an error message says so.
Maybe Windows is easier to work with than MacOS.You must be joking - switching these goddamn' drivers every time you switch from ArgyllCMS to other profiling software is a real PITA ;) ArgyllCMS is a pure fun to use on OSX - it adds some fairy-tale elements to reality, but once you learn the spells it's quite simple to use it :)
For instance it tries to tell me that my display gamut is larger than AdobeRGB, even Dell wouldn't try to tell me that.
Well sure it is, but ColorSync tries to show me that my U2413 is about 110% of aRGB, and Dell only claims 98%. I'll believe if dispcalgui says it too, maybe. I'll also check it Win XP with Profile Inspector.
I guess Mr Gill doesn't really need to worry about a GUI, since dispcal has been created, but command line apps are so 90s.
You must be joking - switching these goddamn' drivers every time you switch from ArgyllCMS to other profiling software is a real PITA ;)Why would you need any other profiling software? ;D Changing the drivers is trivial in any event.
I'm not sure about the figure that is being reported. The comparative volume of the display gamut vs. Adobe RGB gamut could well be 110%, and it might cover 98% of Adobe RGB (maybe some colors in Adobe RGB are out of the gamut of the monitor). Otherwise, 110% of Adobe RGB does not make much sense.
Just remember that Dispcal guy covers only a subset of the functionality of Argyll CMS
Regards
Thank you for the insight that it is possible for a color space to be larger and smaller at the same time.
Hening: If he wants to be a reclusive genius writing software for his own pleasure, fine. It will never be used by many people who would and should use it, if it never has a decent GUI.
The only way any wonder app will have broad acceptance is with a solid GUI.I agree, and rest assured that any version of ArgyllCMS I create that has a GUI, will cost you money.
You must be joking - switching these goddamn' drivers every time you switch from ArgyllCMS to other profiling software is a real PITA ;)It's swings and roundabouts - when nothing grabs the instrument permanently on OS X it works well. If something does (like a system driver or an X-Rite daemon), it's actually harder in OS X because there's no built in facility to swap drivers like there is on MSWin, instead you have to start mucking about as super user to fix it.
So I don't need attitude.Then don't be rude when you're looking for help.
I'm minded to think that a well designed modern user centred interface would result in a popular product that people would pay for, the current command line style being inherently self limiting with respect to broader user acceptability.MarkM very nicely summarized the tradeoffs between a pure GUI and command line/tool UI, but don't think that the fact that ArgyllCMS has a command line interface implies in any way that I am advocating it as what "everyone should use" - it is that way due to history - my aim was to get to the core of various colour management tasks as efficiently as possible, and a command line based tool has the lowest development overhead. If I had an army of people working for me, then I could command some of them to write a GUI, but alas I only have my own labour to command. I have no disagreement at all that a GUI would broaden its appeal - but I seem to have mislaid my magic wand.
I agree, and rest assured that any version of ArgyllCMS I create that has a GUI, will cost you money.
I buy lots of apps, many of them work well, and I would buy yours. Beauty can be appreciated by the masses if they can access it.there are quite some GUI frontends for argyll...
there are quite some GUI frontends for argyll...Indeed, that is why I used the phrase "well designed modern user centred interface" rather than GUI. It's about the whole user experience, from installation to patterns of usage.
Just curious whether creating a display profile using ArgyllCMS will deliver better or different looking previews editing under an Adobe driven color engine on a calibrated system compared to just relying on something like Colormunki Display profile.Some people have reported being more pleased with display profiles created using ArgyllCMS + DispcalGUI than the default Colormunki Display software, but it's hard to make generalizations - every type of color device has it's own behavior that the profiling software may or may not cope well with, and there is a tradeoff of time vs. quality as well. ArgyllCMS gives you more flexibility in this regard, but flexibility = complexity = confusion.
FWIW, I've done some visual comparisons between NEC Spectraview with the dedicated puck they ship and ArgyllCMS. I didn't see much if any difference so I've stuck with Spectraview as it's easier to setup and maintain. I use ArgylCMS for all my paper profiling with an i1Pro.
Just curious whether creating a display profile using ArgyllCMS will deliver better or different looking previews editing under an Adobe driven color engine on a calibrated system compared to just relying on something like Colormunki Display profile.
For display calibration and profiling, I find DispcalGUI very nice to use.unfortunately it does not work with H/W LUTs, so if you have a little bit (or a lot) upscale monitor you have to use OEM software (which is not necessarily bad may be for the likes of Eizo or NEC - but for the tiers below it is almost always rebranded X-Rite).
unfortunately it does not work with H/W LUTs, so if you have a little bit (or a lot) upscale monitor you have to use OEM software (which is not necessarily bad may be for the likes of Eizo or NEC - but for the tiers below it is almost always rebranded X-Rite).
The most difficult part was to find a way to print the targets without any colour management, thanks Adobe for removing that from PhotoShop !
There is actually a very simple way to print charts for profiling in Photoshop. Assign any printer profile. In your color preferences set the defaults to Colorimetric and no BPC. Then just print using Photoshop manages color and selecting the same printer profile with Colorimetric and no BPC. Ignore warning messages.
Works great. It bypasses everything and just sends the RGB values directly to the printer driver.
Etoa: You can use any RGB printer profile but not CYMK profiles. It doesn't have to be the printer you are using at the time.