We've been quite happy with the Heidelberg engine available for OS9, and
have used it extensively. We prefer it over the other standard options
(Adobe CMM, AppleCMM).

But I have not been able to find an OSX version of the Heidelberg CMM.

Does anyone know of one that's out there?

Peter Anton
MicroPRINT

From:	otto
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:49:25 +1000

nAPpy wrote:
> We've been quite happy with the Heidelberg engine available for OS9, and
> have used it extensively. We prefer it over the other standard options
> (Adobe CMM, AppleCMM).
>
> But I have not been able to find an OSX version of the Heidelberg CMM.
>
> Does anyone know of one that's out there?
>
> Peter Anton
> MicroPRINT
>

I seem to recall that the Apple CMM is the same as the Heidelberg CMM.
Can anybody verify this?

From:	Robert Johnston
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:46:18 GMT

> I seem to recall that the Apple CMM is the same as the Heidelberg CMM.
> Can anybody verify this?

So far as I remember the Heidelberg CMM was bought (or licensed) by
Microsoft and is now what comes up in the Windows version of Photoshop
as 'Microsoft ICM'.

Yep, here we are:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Apr97/LinoPr.asp

Robert

From:	Robert Johnston
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:53:21 GMT

Oh, and the other thing that occurs to me about the Heidelberg/LinoColor
CMM is its habit of producing 'scum dots'. Try this:

Make a new RGB file in Photoshop (Windows); fill it with white (rgb
0,0,0). Select the Microsoft ICM as your colour conversion engine. Then
convert your white file to CMYK. Open the info panel and run the
eyedropper over the image. See the C and Y values jumping between 0 and
1? Since when was pure white C1 M0 Y1 K0?

Probably didn't matter in the old days, but in these days of
CTP/waterless/stochastic 1% dots can sometimes be held on press. Nasty.

R

From:	nAPpy
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:33:05 -0500

Robert Johnston wrote:

> > I seem to recall that the Apple CMM is the same as the Heidelberg CMM.
> > Can anybody verify this?
>
> So far as I remember the Heidelberg CMM was bought (or licensed) by
> Microsoft and is now what comes up in the Windows version of Photoshop
> as 'Microsoft ICM'.
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Apr97/LinoPr.asp

Well that explains why it will never be released for Mac OSX...
Software company X makes a good product.
Billy buys it, and it never releases a non-Windows version again.

Peter

From:	Odysseus
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:23:11 GMT

In article <41EFCF31.A3D0CB45@nospamplease.com>,
nAPpy wrote:

> Robert Johnston wrote:
>
> > > I seem to recall that the Apple CMM is the same as the Heidelberg CMM.
> > > Can anybody verify this?
> >
> > So far as I remember the Heidelberg CMM was bought (or licensed) by
> > Microsoft and is now what comes up in the Windows version of Photoshop
> > as 'Microsoft ICM'.
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Apr97/LinoPr.asp
>
> Well that explains why it will never be released for Mac OSX...
> Software company X makes a good product.
> Billy buys it, and it never releases a non-Windows version again.
>
I don't know about that: I'm far from being a Microsoft fan, but they
have a long history of writing software for Apple -- from even before
MS-DOS's time. At any rate they seem to have a pretty competent
Macintosh programming division; IME the Mac version of their software
(e.g. Word & Excel) is often better than the Wintel equivalent.

--
Odysseus

From:	Al Ferrari
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:29:02 GMT

Odysseus wrote:
>
> I don't know about that: I'm far from being a Microsoft fan, but they
> have a long history of writing software for Apple -- from even before
> MS-DOS's time. At any rate they seem to have a pretty competent
> Macintosh programming division; IME the Mac version of their software
> (e.g. Word & Excel) is often better than the Wintel equivalent.
>
> --
> Odysseus

Hmmmm...
I think the historical sequence was MS-DOS first, Apple later. Other than
that, I might agree, except I don't use pcs, so I would not know. :-)

Al Ferrari

From:	Odysseus
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:49:10 GMT

In article <41F0305C.E4009C6C@dnai.com>, Al Ferrari
wrote:

> Odysseus wrote:
> >
> > I don't know about that: I'm far from being a Microsoft fan, but they
> > have a long history of writing software for Apple -- from even before
> > MS-DOS's time. At any rate they seem to have a pretty competent
> > Macintosh programming division; IME the Mac version of their software
> > (e.g. Word & Excel) is often better than the Wintel equivalent.
> >
> Hmmmm...
> I think the historical sequence was MS-DOS first, Apple later. Other than
> that, I might agree, except I don't use pcs, so I would not know. :-)
>

Was MS-DOS already developed by 1977-8? I thought the first IBM-PCs
didn't come out until about 1981, and IIRC their contracting Gates to
supply an OS was something of a last-minute decision. At any rate I have
a 1979 Apple ][ at home that has Gates's "Applesoft BASIC" in its
firmware, which I believe had already been through at least one revision.

Perhaps you're forgetting that Apple made a few computers before the
Macintosh, which was indeed later than MS-DOS.

--
Odysseus

From:	Al Ferrari
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:32:40 GMT

Odysseus wrote:
>
> In article <41F0305C.E4009C6C@dnai.com>, Al Ferrari
> wrote:
>
> > Odysseus wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know about that: I'm far from being a Microsoft fan, but they
> > > have a long history of writing software for Apple -- from even before
> > > MS-DOS's time. At any rate they seem to have a pretty competent
> > > Macintosh programming division; IME the Mac version of their software
> > > (e.g. Word & Excel) is often better than the Wintel equivalent.
> > >
> > Hmmmm...
> > I think the historical sequence was MS-DOS first, Apple later. Other than
> > that, I might agree, except I don't use pcs, so I would not know. :-)
> >
>
> Was MS-DOS already developed by 1977-8? I thought the first IBM-PCs
> didn't come out until about 1981, and IIRC their contracting Gates to
> supply an OS was something of a last-minute decision. At any rate I have
> a 1979 Apple ][ at home that has Gates's "Applesoft BASIC" in its
> firmware, which I believe had already been through at least one revision.
>
> Perhaps you're forgetting that Apple made a few computers before the
> Macintosh, which was indeed later than MS-DOS.
>
> --
> Odysseus

You are correct. Point well taken.

Al

From:	Vladimir Misev
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:53:20 +0100

nAPpy wrote:
> We've been quite happy with the Heidelberg engine available for OS9, and
> have used it extensively. We prefer it over the other standard options
> (Adobe CMM, AppleCMM).
>
> But I have not been able to find an OSX version of the Heidelberg CMM.
>
> Does anyone know of one that's out there?
>
> Peter Anton
> MicroPRINT
>
Heidelberg doesn't make a CMM for OS X.
Use Adobe CMM instead, is better any way

regards

vladimir

From:	nAPpy
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:22:01 -0500

Vladimir Misev wrote:

> Heidelberg doesn't make a CMM for OS X.
> Use Adobe CMM instead, is better any way

I had seen this in the past, and was hoping times had changed this sad fact.

We need to be able to use a CMM available to applications which use
ColorSync, as our ICC workflow goes through ColorSync. While using the Adobe
CMM (ACE, whatever) is possible and maybe preferable in adobe apps, we cannot
use it in other apps in OSX, including Quark via a CMM extensions which
bypasses the standard Quark print color management procedures, and Pitstop,
which although an Acrobat extension, uses the ColorSync CMM, with no choice
given to the user.

Adobe's CMM is not usable in ColorSync in OSX, correct?

It seems only the Apple CMM is available.

How does this CMM differ from previous Apple CMM's? How different will my
output be when printing from OS9 systems and OSX systems if the AppleCMM is
chosen in both? I can and will do a few tests myself to find out, but would
like others' opinions as well.

peter anton

From:	Lee Blevins
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:25:09 -0500

nAPpy wrote:

> We've been quite happy with the Heidelberg engine available for OS9, and
> have used it extensively. We prefer it over the other standard options
> (Adobe CMM, AppleCMM).
>
> But I have not been able to find an OSX version of the Heidelberg CMM.
>
> Does anyone know of one that's out there?
>
> Peter Anton
> MicroPRINT

I'm interested in how you came to use the Heidelberg instead of the
others.

What was it you saw that influenced your decision?

From:	nAPpy
Subject:	Re: Heidelberg CMM for OSX?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:13:07 -0500

Lee Blevins wrote:

> I'm interested in how you came to use the Heidelberg instead of the
> others.
>
> What was it you saw that influenced your decision?

Originally, when we instituted our ICC workflow, the vendor we used
recommended the Heidelberg CMM over the other OS9 CMM's (this was before
OSX's wide spread use). We also did a few quick tests using some standard
images (like colorsync's) and liked the results.

More than anything else, once we profiled our devices and made any final
tweaks using the heidelberg CMM, we had made the commitment to stay with it
or pay the price by having to reprofile every device in our shop. After all,
I don't want to have to ask our techs to use this CMM on this device, that
CMM on that device, etc.

However, I have been warming up to the idea of switching to Adobe's CMM
instead. It would allow for more consistent results between our OS9 and OSX
workstations. I've seen it said a few times that the Heidelberg CMM is dead
software, and will not be upgraded to OSX. I was hoping to find that to be
wrong with this thread. Contrary to our limited and unscientific tests, I've
seen many people express their preference for the Adobe CMM over the
Heidelberg. Though, I've seen as many or more people say they prefer the
Heidelberg "when available," meaning on machines running OS9, and usually in
older posts and discussions, pre-OSX.

Changing SOP will require reprofiling all the devices and paper types in
shop, though. I'm estimating that to be a 2-3 day project.

peter anton