Recent blog entries for rlk

Chema

Like raph, I have memories of Chema from the first Printing Summit. I also had the good fortune to meet him twice more: in Mexico City when I was on vacation, and in Boston when he was here on business. At that last meeting, we finally resolved an issue that had been confusing us ever since the summit.

There's really no way to describe what happened. At least he was doing something he enjoyed.

Gimp-Print

We're finally on the verge of alpha, although we don't know whether it's going to be 4.4 or 5.0 yet. This last development release (4.3.24) has quite a few goodies jammed into it. I finally did printing to CD's, which some Epson printers can do. The other interesting addition is a few variations on Raph's EvenTone dithering, which I call Hybrid EvenTone and UniTone.

Hybrid EvenTone is a fairly simple variation that reduces the high frequency patterning that EvenTone sometimes produces in light midtones, particularly if only one channel is in use. Like most screening algorithms, EvenTone is usually implemented by comparing a value (the input value plus the error term that's specific to the algorithm) against a constant (typically 0.5): if the value exceeds the constant, the dot is printed. What Hybrid EvenTone does is perturb the "constant" by using a small amount of a fixed dither matrix. In our case, the perturbation from the dither matrix is 1/16 (plus or minus 1/32). This causes dots to be printed slightly out of position. This creates a very slight imperfection in the screen, but it breaks up the somewhat objectionable patterning. I arrived at the value of 1/16 for the perturbation by experiment; that amount of variation is sufficient to break up all patterning but the effect on the smoothness is very minor.

UniTone is more radical. It creates an EvenTone screen based on multiple channels, and then picks the channel to print at each selected position by EvenTone screens on each channel. The channel selected is the one with the best EvenTone value.

The principle behind this is that the eye has difficulty distinguishing the color of isolated small dots, but it easily sees the luminosity. The problem with EvenTone dithering of pale neutral tones is that the dots of each color typically line up, or even overprint, while leaving large expanses of unprinted paper. UniTone dithering spaces these dots apart, creating the impression of more lighter dots.

For this to work, the dots have to be fairly close in luminosity, or else there will be visible holes where light inks are printed. It turns out that yellow is much lighter than any other ink (even light cyan and light magenta), and I therefore obtained best results by dithering every channel except yellow by UniTone and dithering yellow by a separate EvenTone screen.

How well does it work? It varies. With old-style, single drop size printers at low resolution (e. g. the Epson Stylus Photo EX at 360 DPI, which uses something like 40 pl drops), the colors of the drops are easily distinguished and the UniTone screen works poorly. However, on the Stylus C80 at high resolution (3 pl drops, 4 colors) and the Stylus Photo EX (8 pl drops, 6 colors), the improvement is substantial in gray and blue tones. There's less improvement on the Stylus Photo 2200, and sometimes the result is worse; it depends upon whether the printing is unidirectional or bidirectional, and the choice of weave pattern. However, the best results I've obtained with UniTone is better than the best results from EvenTone or Hybrid EvenTone.

I also figured out how to use EvenTone and UniTone screening with multiple drop sizes. The principle applies to any screening algorithm. The method is to pick two candidate drop sizes (small and large) based on the input value, and then to perform the screening based on the small drop size being "off" and the large drop size being "on".

All in all, it will be very interesting to see how other people perceive the differences between 4.2 and 4.3.

Japan-market Printers

It looks like some of the Japan-market printers are coming to the US. The Stylus Photo R300 is a PM-G type printer with 3 pl minimum drop size, and the R800 (which is due out in February) is a PX-G type printer with 1.5 pl drops and red and blue inks. Anyone know good algorithms for RGB->CMYRB?

More on the Epson Japan-Market Printers

These things are even wilder than I thought. They appear to have three pigment inks:

  • PX V is 4-color ink, apparently similar to the C80 and its successors, with a 3 pl drop size.

  • PX P is 7-color (CcMmYKk). The only printer using that is the PM-4000PX, which is our old friend the Stylus Photo 2200.

  • The really wild one is PX G. This appears to have three shades of black (if I'm reading the cartoons right; maybe it's 2) in addition to CMY. This uses a 1.5 pl drop size, which is astounding for pigment ink. However, it also has red and blue inks to increase the gamut. This is a very interesting choice. I agree with blue; it's typically very hard to get good blue out of inkjet printers. I'm not sure I agree with the choice of red as the other "wildcard" ink, though, because the existing 7-color (PX P) inks print spectacular reds as it is. Green is usually a very troublesome color, and it's particularly difficult to get a saturated light green, so I'd think a highly saturated light green ink would be a good choice. Interestingly enough, it's not hard to get a really saturated dark green that's way outside of monitor gamut. I wonder if the really tiny drops forced them to use a formula that's less saturated, so they're compensating with the red and blue inks.

They also have PM-G inks (6-color dye) with 1.5 and 3 pl minimum dot sizes, depending upon the printer. Perhaps they've reformulated the inks; if not, they probably have the same problems as what I've seen on the 960 with poor saturation in the reds.

If anyone knows Japanese, I'd be very interested in a translation of this PDF.

So what do I think? I'd rather see a highly saturated 4-color combination (CMYK) with very small drops for the highest quality. At the very highest resolution, the PX P ink with 1.5 pl drops should come very close to matching PX V with 4 pl drops. It's certainly easier to get right, and it avoids all the nasties that multiple shades can bring (getting transitions clean, for example). However, at lower resolutions (with correspondingly bigger drops), 6-color (CcMmYK) or 7-color (CcMmYKk) are the way to go, and 2880x1440 is very slow even with the gigantic print heads that some of these printers have (plus it's computationally expensive). A lot of people will be perfectly happy with 720 DPI on the 2200, but they won't be happy with 720 DPI on these hyper-micro-drop 2880x1440 or 2880x2880 machines.

The real wildcard is this PX G. Since I can't figure out exactly how many different black/gray components it has, I have to reserve judgment until someone translates it for me. It's certainly not something we're going to support in Gimp-Print right now (that's not to say we won't in the future!), unless someone wants to use the raw interface with their own color code.

In any event, printing technology certainly isn't standing still...

Epson Stylus Photo 2200

Raph, about the Epson Stylus Photo 2200: the light black ink isn't quite as perfect a solution as it looks at first glance. The problem with the 2200 is that the color inks alone have a cyan cast, and the light black and photo black inks have a brown cast to compensate. On Epson's other printers, Gimp-Print doesn't replace composite gray with black ink until quite a bit of CMY ink is used. On the 2200, that's not an option: you pretty much have to use light black ink for even very light gray, mixed with color ink. I've found that we can get away with cheating slightly (.01 of maximum density) without getting much of a color cast, but using composite-only ink at more than that is asking for trouble.

The light black dots are darker than the light cyan, light magenta, and yellow dots, so they're actually more visible. The upshot is that I haven't been able to achieve quite the smoothness of texture with the 2200 as I can with the 870, say.

The more interesting issues are with the choices of darker black ink. There are two choices available: photo black and matte black. The matte black ink is considerably darker, and is neutral in tone, while the photo black ink is rather brownish in color and will not produce anything close to a solid (or neutral) black without CMY inks in the same proportion (about 2 parts black for 1 part CMY is what I've found). The matte black ink doesn't actually seem to be all that dark either, at least on the papers I've tried. It's OK on Radiant White Watercolor Paper, but on Heavyweight Matte it requires extra black ink to achieve a good black.

Epson's real intent with this somewhat odd inkset appears to be twofold: to improve the blue and green gamut (where inkjets tend to be weak) and to allow toning photographic prints by adjusting the proportions of light vs. dark ink. I'm actually somewhat tempted to add a tone control (warm to cold) to Epson printers using UltraChrome inks in Gimp-Print, but that's still fairly low on my list of priorities.

What's also truly fascinating about this printer is the extreme color gamut -- it simply produces much more saturated output than any other Epson printer I've tried. This is particularly interesting because the UltraChrome inks are pigment-based, and that usually leads to a smaller gamut.

BTW, for anyone who notices that the 2200 is capable of 2880x1440 DPI while the 870 can only do 1440x720 DPI, and that it therefore sounds like the 2200 is rather lacking in comparison to a much older printer, that's a wrong interpretation. The smallest drop size the two printers use is both 4 pl, and that's more or less what limits the highlight smoothness. The difference is that the 870 needs three drop sizes, roughly 4, 8, and 12 pl, in order to deposit enough ink, while the 2200 needs only the smallest drop size. The larger dots are only used in dark areas, so they're effectively hidden. The higher resolution of the 2200 does allow more places on which to deposit a dot, which theoretically allows for better dithering placement and higher print resolution. However, with a good dither algorithm such as Raph's excellent EvenTone Screen, 1440x720 is quite sufficient. For photographs, the high print resolution doesn't matter, although for line art with extremely fine detail it could make a difference. In practice, the 2200 is almost as good at 720 DPI as it is at 2880x1440 DPI, and 4x faster (that's not a typo; the details of why are rather boring). The 870, in contrast, cannot effectively use the smallest drop sizes at 720 DPI (it uses drops of approximately 6, 12, and 24 pl), and the quality at 720 DPI is significantly degraded.

The 2200 is in fact a spectacular printer, but it has its quirks. Quirks or no, it's still a lot easier to produce a neutral grayscale on the 2200 than it is on the 870.

One thing that's somewhat unfortunate is that I have yet to figure out how to print full bleed to the top and bottom of the page. Someone sent me a print file, and it appears that there's a completely undocumented remote mode command (SN followed by something like 45 data bytes) that enables it. Changing a byte within that command disabled the full bleed. I'd like to know what that's all about.

Epson Stylus Photo 960

In contrast, I'm rather disappointed by this printer. It has a tiny 2 pl drop size, which is almost invisible under a high quality 5x loupe. It does produce very smooth highlights, but it's very hard to get a neutral grayscale from it. The workaround is to use much more dark ink, which somewhat negates the advantage of the small drops in the midtones, which therefore are actually typically grainier than the highlights.

Due to this, it really is necessary to use 2880x1440 DPI to get the highest quality; 1440x720 DPI requires using 4, 8, and 16 pl drops, which completely negates the advantage of this printer. In addition, despite the difficulty of eliminating color casts, this printer also has a markedly smaller gamut than the 2200 (which as I noted above has a really huge gamut) and the 870. This is particularly apparent in the reds. Interestingly enough, though, it does produce a very solid black.

This is a printer that could really use a light black ink.

Other Interesting Printers

Epson just announced the Stylus Pro 4000. If you're a fan of UltraChrome inks, the specs will simply blow you away. 3.5 pl, 8 separate ink tanks (lets you have both matte and photo black installed, or 2xCMYK cartridges for more throughput for proofing). Very complicated beast, but it sounds like it's quite a machine.

Epson has introduced a whole bunch of printers in Japan whose specs blow away anything available in the US. The PM-970C and PM-980C, for example, are 7-color, 1.8 (!) pl printers with gigantic print heads, which will deliver tremendous print speed in draft mode and some improvement at 2880x2880 (!) DPI. It uses a dark yellow (!) 7th ink, which apparently is used to improve skin tones. I think it would have potential to improve red, yellow, and green somewhat.

The site, by the way, is called I Love Epson. No, I can't read Japanese, and unfortunately they've Flashified the site a lot, making it harder to get around. However, they've recently introduced a line of printers spearheaded by the PX-900G, and some of the specs on these things are incredible (1.5 pl, for example).

Gimp-Print

Progress on the next release (4.4 or 5.0) is slower than I'd like. For one, we're having problems with recent 4.3 releases on Macintosh OS X; 4.3.18 works fine if you drag and drop files onto the Print Center, but printing from applications doesn't work. I suspect a PPD problem of some kind, but we haven't yet managed to debug it. I consider this to be a hard alpha stopper; OS X users are very important.

There's also project fatigue; a lot of people who have been working on it for a while are less active now. I myself am getting fatigued. Maybe it's time to move on after this release, and either take a break for a while or find something else to do. I've been working on this for more than 4 years now. That's a lot of time.

18 Sep 2002 (updated 18 Sep 2002 at 00:29 UTC) »
Inside the tornado!

Apple has picked up on CUPS and Gimp-print in a big way. Mac OS X 10.2 is using CUPS as the core of its printing system, and Gimp-print is providing a lot of the drivers.

They aren't actually bundling Gimp-print with OS X, but when Phil Schiller (top marketing guy) does a keynote at Seybold, and mentions Gimp-print for more than a few seconds, they're not exactly ignoring it. It's being made available for download on all of the OS X sites, and on VersionTracker.com it's getting (with very few exceptions, mostly related to the fact that until extremely recently Ghostscript wasn't available to handle applications generating PostScript output) rave reviews. One person even said that Epson pointed him at Gimp-print for his 2200, because they don't know when they'll have their own driver.

It's absolutely astounding how all of this happens. I certainly never imagined it would go mainstream to this degree; I expected uptake by Linux distributions, but since it's a piece of infrastructure I expected it to remain largely invisible. Reality is very different.

My sister in law has told me several times that she thinks I'm crazy for not having patented it and made my fortune selling it. Aside from the fact that it's rather difficult to patent a printer driver, and I'm a free software fan in general, it's interesting to note that there are a few proprietary driver packages for Linux/UNIX: Xwtools and PrintPro. The developer of Xwtools is actually making pieces of it free/GPL (in particular the excellent Epson Stylus maintenance utility, which is far nicer than our own escputil), and PrintPro has steady, but not spectacular sales in the corporate arena. However, neither of these packages has really taken off. I'm convinced that the free part is a direct cause of the developer interest, which is what's needed to create end user interest.

It's interesting to note how many users are really unhappy with printer vendors. From my own discussions, I believe that the problem is with the OS vendors, who historically keep changing their driver architecture, and with the printer vendors, who don't spend much on sustaining for their older models. I can't entirely blame the printer vendors; sustaining is very expensive and unpleasant. However, it's very apparent that at least some printer vendors essentially write new drivers for every printer model; the Windows GUI for the Stylus Color 800 is very different (and clearly much older) from that of the C80. A data-driven approach would help here.

This whole thing's actually really wild, and very exciting.

The functionality/architecture tradeoff

One thing that's disappointed me is that we haven't really looked all that hard at our internal architecture over the past few years. We've certainly cleaned up a lot of interfaces, but we've never moved toward the much more data-driven architecture I envisioned. This is as much my fault as anyone's; I haven't had a lot of real moments of inspiration on this front.

Most of my effort has gone into nibbling around the edges: tweaking the Epson family metadata schema to support newer printers, improving color fidelity in minor ways, playing around with dithering, and the like. There have been a lot of other sub-projects, such as a user's manual, that also aren't architectural in nature; most of the architectural work has gone toward improving the build system for both the code and documentation.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is actually a reason why Gimp-print has succeeded. Most of the work has gone into things with visible end-user effect; documenting how to actually use it,supporting more printers and improving quality is something people notice; low-level architecture isn't. Also, the base is stable; there have been zero changes to the API (as determined by commits to the gimp-print.h header file) in the 4.2 series, and exactly one minor addition (which may have important ramificationns for color management on photo printers later) thus far in 4.3. Is the API perfect? No; there are certainly things I'd like to change. But it's good enough, and probably a lot better than existing printing facilities can really use.

The 4.2 releases really have been stable -- 4.2.1 came out fully five months after 4.2.0; it did contain a number of bug fixes, but they were mostly corner cases. It also contained some new functionality: the IJS driver. 4.2.2 was almost five months after 4.2.1. It contained some more bug fixes (some rather important ones), but none were regressions. Most of its new functionality was support for new Epson printers. Of course, there have been prereleases and release candidates, but I'm overjoyed how stable we've managed to keep 4.2. 4.0 had five releases in the first month -- fortunately, 4.0.4 was solid -- but it's evident that we've matured as a project.

Color management

I discovered not long ago that the API can actually support color management, thanks to the 16-bit CMYK input method (the 8-bit CMYK and RGB inputs could too, but it wouldn't be as effective). We've done some experimenting, and discussion on the development list has heated up recently, so somebody (maybe even I) will come up with a prototype. There has already been one prototype (it isn't very practical in its current form for various reasons) that has demonstrated really dramatic results for certain colors that Gimp-print currently has difficulty with.

Complete control over all ink channels!

So I finally put code into Gimp-print to provide a new input mode that gives full control over all physical channels. This is like CMYK, only more so (if you have a 6 or 7 color printer). Somebody with a spectrophotometer can make really good profiles and use all six colors optimally.

I don't have time to write more about this right now, but if anyone wants to play with it, it's on the "generic_color_branch" in our CVS.

Gimp-Print 4.2.1 is out

This has been a very long update cycle; it's been about 5 months since 4.2.0! I guess that that means that 4.2.0 is pretty good. We've added an IJS driver and an OS X port; other than that, it's basically just bug fixes.

It's not going to be that easy to maintain 4.2, with some of the new printers coming out (Epson's releasing a 7-color printer; the 4.2 code has no really clean way to support a light black ink). Besides which, 4.3 has Even Tone screening. Mark Tomlinson has been hacking on it. He's finally cleaned up the bulk of the waterfall problem, and the quality is really, really impressive. The API actually hasn't changed yet, so we might actually want to consider using the mainline as the base for 4.2.2. Definitely something to chew on...

EvenTone screening

Seriously good stuff. Mark has been doing a lot of work tuning it. The combinations I've tried have all been significantly smoother than adaptive hybrid; this is actually most noticeable at high resolutions (I'd have expected the opposite).

The one serious problem we have left to solve is "waterfalling". This is a common problem with error diffusion algorithms in general; it takes a while to build up sufficient accumulated error to print anything at all. The result is that there's a strip or small region where there should be a low density of ink that has none at all. I tried eliminating it last night by seeding the error with pseudo-random values to try to perturb some points over the threshold. It worked, but it ruined the smoothness of the texture.

The next thought I have is to perturb the threshold value in a similar pseudo-random fashion (specifically, using a carefully constructed dither matrix). The amount of the perturbation can vary, depending upon the density at the point in question. Waterfalling appears to only be an issue when the ink coverage is less than about 1%; perhaps we can find a way to work with that.

Thanks for the code drop, raph. I've forwarded it along.

Tandem screening is something we've been talking about, and taking occasional stabs at, for quite a while. We haven't managed to get it right, though, and this sounds like it might be just what we're looking for.

My thought at this point is that we should tune ETS, or better yet EBS, to be our high end, "quality at all costs" dither algorithm. Therefore, I would accept a significant speed penalty for its use, and we'll probably turn on all of the quality options. With contemporary commodity processors being in the 1+ GHz range, there shouldn't be any problem for desktop users.

For general high quality, Adaptive Hybrid already works very well, and there's no good reason to get rid of it. It has a lot of history behind it, and there's no substitute for experience. It's also reasonably fast; I think a 200-300 MHz CPU should be able to keep up with the printer speed.

Color management is something I've done some thinking about. The problem with all of the solutions I'm aware of is that they're CMYK-based. For four color, single dot size printers that's fine, but most high end printers are six color and/or variable drop size. If the drop sizes and relative densities aren't correctly tuned -- and that's what I think Raph was seeing with the inconsistency between 1440x720 and 720x720 -- no photometric correction method based on a relatively small sampling of points can correct the errors.

From an implementation standpoint, we can do at least as well as anyone else by utilizing the 16-bit raw CMYK input. This bypasses all internal color management, and simply requires the image source to supply 16 bits per channel. The logical extension from this is to have a printer input space (1 channel per printer output channel). Beyond this, we'd have to look at how to represent the dot sizes. Tuning dot sizes on variable drop printers is actually rather tricky.

6-color transitions are indeed a very important part of modern inkjet printing, and it's something I believe a lot of people have had difficulty with. It wasn't until quite late in the 4.1 development cycle that we figured out what needed to be done. Essentially, what we did was to screen the dark dots within the composite channel using the same algorithm -- and indeed the very same blue noise mask -- that we use to decide whether to print dots at all. This was not a trivial insight; for a long time I thought that using the same mask (without shifting it to decorrelate dot selection from ink selection) would result in something like a quadratic curve in the transition zone. It was when I figured out how to correct for this that it was possible to get a really smooth transition.

I initially thought that the ETS was improving the smoothness through use of less dark ink. We've been having a lot of internal discussion on this; there is some fear that we're not using enough dark ink. But when I looked at it more closely, that wasn't the case at all. I can adjust the transition zones even with adaptive hybrid, and this didn't help at all. The problem is, just as Raph hypothesized, that the blue noise screen isn't as smooth as ETS. In fact, with ETS the transition is a bit more visible due to the overall greater smoothness, but I still need a fairly strong loupe to see what's actually happening.

Anyway, it looks as though 4.2.1 will contain an IJS driver, so we can finally solve the problem of building Gimp-print into Ghostscript. I'm actually quite pleased it's taken this long for 4.2.1 to come out; it's an indication that we did a much better QA job on 4.2 than we did on 4.0. It took us five releases of 4.0 to get things stable; 4.0.4 was the first 4.0 release that didn't have any stoppers. There really haven't been any critical bugs in 4.2 that have necessitated a fast update, so we can go ahead working on development and back port things into 4.2 as desired. Of course, the downside of the relative maturity is that things are happening more slowly.

I don't know yet exactly what we'll do with EBS, but it sounds like it does a lot of the things that we've been thinking about for a while.

And things keep rolling along...

A new member of the gimp-print development team, Mark Tomlinson, is working on integrating raph's EvenTone dither algorithm into the project. It's still only on the mainline (development), but it's showing absolutely spectacular promise. I thought our Adaptive Hybrid dither algorithm was pretty good (and it certainly is very good, when compared against a lot of others that I've seen), but with the exception of a few specific problems it looks like we're going to have a new flagship dither algorithm fairly soon.

The big improvement is in smoothness. This is particularly noticeable in solid color midtones, but it's also noticeable in some line art, such as the 1 degree spaced radial lines in the CUPS test page. With adaptive hybrid, the lines look somewhat rough; with EvenTone, the lines are absolutely smooth to within the limits of the printer's resolution. The results at 1440x1440 on my Epson Stylus C80 are astounding -- at 1440x720, the 720 DPI vertical resolution is perceptible as very fine stairstepping in the almost-horizontal lines; the 1440 DPI resolution is not. Shame on Epson for underselling the true capability of that printer! They only advertise it as 2880x720. It's really capable of 2880x1440, and there's a real use for it!

There are still a few problems. There's still some waterfall effect in very pale areas (very pale regions near a dark boundary have some separation between the boundary and the printing), but it's much better than most error diffusion I've seen. There are some odd artifacts at 720 DPI on the CUPS test page; that's probably a discrete logic bug somewhere that should be easy to fix. And finally, there's some roughness in some light midtone range (I think about 5-10% density). Those issues notwithstanding -- and I have every confidence that they'll get fixed -- this is really something.

I don't want Gimp-print to just be the best quality free printer driver package. I want it to be the best, period. That means better than the OEM drivers. Quite a few people think that Gimp-print's quality is better than Epson's own drivers, especially in terms of color quality, but judging by what I'm seeing there's still room for improvement. If the way to get the very highest quality output is to use free software, then we suddenly have a much stronger position on the desktop. And that's good for everyone.

This probably isn't going to make 4.2.1; that's going to just fix some bugs and probably improve the situation with Canon printers. It's probably a few months of hard testing and such away from beta release; currently it only supports one kind of output (CMYK from CMY input; it also needs to support grayscale, CMY, and raw CMYK). However, if you want to try it, it's on our development CVS. Maybe I'll do 4.3.0 around the time we do 4.2.1, for people who want to experiment.

Look at the CMYK printing in my previous diary entry. That's something that can't be done with the OEM driver.

CMYK!

Yesterday I helped someone print a CMYK tiff to an Epson Stylus Pro 7000 printer under Linux.

That doesn't sound like a big deal, you say. Gimp-print has printed to Epson Stylus printers for a few years now, and who really cares about CMYK? Answer: the Stylus Pro printers are Epson's high end professional printers, and a lot of professionals like the extra control that CMYK gives them. Not to mention, Epson's own driver doesn't handle CMYK input.

We did this using CUPS. I had to fix a few bugs in CUPS; one of them may have been a bug in libtiff; the fix was a one liner, to enable CUPS to handle the CMYK TIFF. The other one was more substantive -- CUPS was converting the CMYK to RGB, only to convert it right back to CMYK. Note that CMYK is four channels, and RGB is only three. That meant that information was getting lost. In this case, what the file in question did was print 100% C, M, Y, and K. The conversion to RGB made it 0% R, G, and B; and the conversion back made it 100% K, and 0% C, M, and Y. Not an insignificant difference.

This is seriously cool to professional users. There used to be an affordable RIP (raster image processor) called Adobe PressReady, but it never supported the high end printers, and Adobe has since discontinued to it (speculation was that some of Adobe's partners, who sell much more expensive RIP's, didn't like the competition). Whatever the case may be, there's at least the germ of another way to do it. Ghostscript is, after all, a Postscript RIP (among many other things), and if it can do CMYK, it means that we, the free software community, can now start to compete in the graphic arts field.

That's not to say that we're anywhere near all the way there. Without color management, we still miss something critical -- the ability to map input colors to screen colors to output colors, and close the loop. So we're currently operating open loop. But we're making strides.

7 older entries...

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!