Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Geraldo Garcia on December 07, 2016, 03:38:39 pm
-
Hello,
I thought about creating this tutorial several times, but never managed to actually do it. A few days ago Mark Lindquist asked me to post this step-by-step just as I was preparing to make another batch of profiles. As the timing was perfect I decided to do it this time. Please feel free to ask anything, specially if something sounds weird (english is not my native language, so...)
Before we start, let's make some things clear:
- If I had an x-rite i1io robotic arm to automate the scanning I would never go this route, but it is an expensive piece of hardware even if you already have the i1 spectro. I cannot justify this purchase as I already have an automated i1 spectrophotometer inside my Z3200.
- Some people think the profiles produced this way are somehow inferior to the profiles produced with a standalone i1 spectrophotometer. I respectfully disagree. The problem may lie on HP software (APS) that most people tend to use to generate the profiles and my solution is to use another software to process the data and to generate the profile. Doing this I could not identify any significant differences between the "automated" profile and the one created with the standalone spectro.
- One downside is the big patch size required by the Z3xxx system. It is quite large, so you will use a considerable amount of paper to make a 1728 patch chart: on a 24" roll it will use a 24x26" piece of paper [see image 1 attached] or two A2 sheets or nine A4 (or 8.5x11") sheets.
- Another downside is the amount of work. The only thing automated is the chart reading, the rest requires a lot of user intervention. Don't get me wrong, I still believe it is better than hand scanning the charts once you have digested the process and created your own workflow and shortcuts.
- This tutorial is based on a system running windows, but the steps and softwares are the same for mac.
HP Z printers may use their HP Utility "color center" or HP's APS software to create profiles. We will use the basic "Color Center" to generate the chart file and to read the printed chart, but another piece of software is needed to create the profile. I like to use Argyll CMS for this, a free color management system, but you may be able to process the TXT file containing the data using any other profile creation software that accepts external files.
The process:
- Use the HP Utility's "color center" to generate the TIFF chart files.
- Print the chart using the desired printer with the desired paper.
- Read the chart using the HP Z printer and HP Utility's "color center" (it will generate a TXT data file).
- Process the file containing the data on a profiling software to generate the profile.
Step One: generate the target
Open the "HP Utility" software, go to the "Color Center" tab and select "Paper Preset Management".
Now, instead of selecting the "Profile Paper" option as you usually would to create profiles, you want to select the last option on the right side: "Color Measurement". [see image 2 attached]
Select the last option, "Export a color chart as a TIFF file for external printing", than browse to the desired folder and give the file a name. Click next.
Select the type of chart and number of patches. You want RGB for sure and I usually go for the largest, 1728 patches.
Now you have to specify the paper format (roll or sheet) and the size (width for rolls and width and length for sheets).
The resulting file (or files in case of smaller sheets) will exactly match the paper size specified and will include enough white borders to avoid cropping on most printers.
Generate files for the sizes you use the most and you will never have to repeat this step. In the future just print the file again on the desired paper and printer.
Step Two: print the chart
No mystery here, just print it as you normally would for a profile chart with the desired printer and paper (no color management, basically). Just make sure to don't enlarge or shrink the chart nor crop the patches in any way. The whole "automated" part depends on this. The TIFF file already includes enough borders to avoid cropping the patches on most printers, just match the image size with the paper size and let the white borders be cropped by the minimum margins of your printer.
Usually I let the targets dry overnight before reading it.
Step three: Read the chart on the HP Z
As long as you have printed the chart correctly, this step should be easy. You just have to load the printed chart correctly:
- Load the printed chart before starting the reading process.
- Load it as if it was a blank paper that you want to print on.
- Insert the top side first, the one with the line of colored rectangles.
- Select "Sheet, with skew check" when the printer asks.
Tip 1: Load the printed chart through the roll paper feed, not through the cut sheet tray. Have an empty roll core on the axle to use it as a support and guide when feeding large pieces. [see image 3 attached]
(Continues below)
-
Tip 2: When printing on canvas some printers feed the material a bit more before printing, generating a top margin bigger than what is expected [see image 4 attached]. It may cause reading problems but you may solve this cutting the extra canvas manually (leave the original top margin) or loading it as it is and advancing the media a few clicks before initiating the reading process (stop when you start to see the colored rectangles under the rollers)[see image 5 attached].
With the chart properly loaded, open the "HP Utility" software, go to the "Color Center" tab and select "Paper Preset Management". Once more select the last option on the right side: "Color Measurement". This time select "Measure a color chart previously printed".
Select the type and patch size of the color chart you printed (RBG 1728 patches in my case) and click next.
Now you must choose the name, location and type of the resulting data file. My advice is to give it exactly the name you want for the final profile to keep things simple. I usually go with something like this: "MyInitials_Printer_Paper_date" and for this tutorial use a .TXT extension.
On "File Format" select "CGATS measurement file" and mark all the checkboxes. Leave the band selection on the default 10nm. Click next.
Now the printer will check the position of the chart. If something is wrong it will eject it and abort. If the chart was correctly loaded it will move to the "preparing" phase to warm up the spectrophotometer for a few minutes. After that it will star reading and the whole process may take half an hour or so. If your char is divided on various cut sheets you will need to load the subsequent sheets on the correct order.
After that you will find a .TXT file with all the data saved on the specified location.
Step Four: generate the profile using a profiling software
You are free to use any software you want, but I will exemplify using Argyll CMS, an excellent and powerful software that is free, available for Mac and PC. The bad news is: it is a command-line software, no graphic user interface. But it is not that hard to use once you know the commands.
Google, download and install Argyll CMS.
Copy the .TXT file we created to the "bin" folder of the Argyll CMS.
Now we have to convert the .TXT file to a .TI3 file. Open a command prompt, go to the "bin" folder and type (Note that "FILENAME" is the name you gave to the file without the .TXT extension):
txt2ti3.exe -v FILENAME.txt FILENAME
That will create a file with the same name and a .TI3 extension.
Before we create the profile I must explain something: Argyll profiles can be excellent if you use them properly. They work perfectly with Relative Colorimetric but if you want perceptual there is a catch: You must specify the source colorspace when creating the profile. That means you will have a profile that is usable for conversions from any colorspace using relative colorimetric, but only from one colorspace when using perceptual. If you use perceptual converting from a different colorspace the result will not be as precise as it could be.
That is not a big problem if you standardize your printing workflow, always exporting files using, let's say, ProPhotoRGB before printing. You may also create different profiles to convert from different workspaces (and please name them in a way that makes sense).
So, before the final step you may want to copy the source colorspace file to the "bin" folder. Let's assume we copied the "ProPhoto.icm" to the "bin" folder.
Now it is time to create the profile. On the command prompt type:
colprof.exe -v -qh -S ProPhoto.icm -cmt -dpp FILENAME
It may take a few minutes to process depending on the processing power of your computer. In the end you will have the FILENAME.icm file ready to install and use.
Some final tips:
- You may want to create shortcuts on your desktop with the command line entries for "txt2ti3" and "colprof". That way you just update de FILENAME when you want to create a new profile and execute the shortcut, avoiding the need to type the commands every time.
- When you want to create different profiles from the same chart, to use a different source profile for perceptual rendering, just rename the .TI3 file and run the "colprof" again with the desired changes.
That is it! I swear it is not as complicated as it sounds.
Best regards.
-
Fantastic Geraldo!
Great tutorial - very much appreciated by us all.
-Mark
-
Geraldo, out of curiosity, do you know a software for PC and Mac that converts the .TXT file automatically without having to use the command line?
Also, the next to largest size target, being used to make the profile, is there a very big difference between it and the 1728 patches target?
Thanks again,
Mark
-
Geraldo, out of curiosity, do you know a software for PC and Mac that converts the .TXT file automatically without having to use the command line?
I believe X-Rite's profilemaker can do it, but I have to check it as I don't have it installed on this computer.
Using Argyll CMS the only way to avoid the command line is to create a shortcut icon with that command and parameters and update the filename on the "properties" before using it. You may do it for the file conversion and also for the profile creation.
Also, the next to largest size target, being used to make the profile, is there a very big difference between it and the 1728 patches target?
The options are 343, 729 or 1728 patches. Every time I thought about making a 729 patch profile I changed my mind before printing, so I can't compare them, actually. I always think: "Since the printer will scan the chart... Hell, let's go for the bigger" ;D
-
Hi Geraldo,
Do you know what is the repeatability of letting the Z3200 measure the chart? If you have 2-3 measurements of the same chart in CGATs format it would be great if you don't mind sharing. I would be curious to do a dE comparison in ColorThink. One good thing to know is whether it beats the repeatability of measuring by hand (probably). I'm also curious to know how close it comes to an iSis.
Interesting about the 1728 patch limit. I wonder if it is possible to hack the software (maybe by changing one of the source files or system files) to allow for any limit. In theory there should be no limitation to patch size, any arbitrary number could be measured, and custom chart designs could be used.
The limitation you pointed out about Argyll Perceptual gamut mapping method is a critical one. I've been working to encourage Graeme to provide another solution to that for quite some time, but it is not really ready yet. The last two versions of Argyll has already started to offer some version of it, but it really requires several more user-controllable options to make it work right. As it is, it is unusable. I'm in the midst of preparing materials for Graeme. Hopefully we can all have the greatest color gamut mapping the world has never seen soon. ArgyllCMS has many, many good things going for it that make it much better than many other options out there.
-
Many thanks Geraldo,
I will have a look into it...and it starts me off in Argyll- that always looked too complicated to me
I have a Z3100 and wonder if the APS in question is the same or different from the Z3200...
greetings,
PK
-
It is possible to use more patches, I calibrate with APS on Z3100 with 4096 patches using Bill Atkinson target. He also have target with 5202 patches.
It is all connected to .txt file in APS software which will generate as many patches as you put in it. As I recall all that information you can find here on forum, or Luminous Landscape main page.
-
It is possible to use more patches, I calibrate with APS on Z3100 with 4096 patches using Bill Atkinson target. He also have target with 5202 patches.
It is all connected to .txt file in APS software which will generate as many patches as you put in it. As I recall all that information you can find here on forum, or Luminous Landscape main page.
Are more patches making your profile better?
I have used 1728 patches in the past, considering that a lot already.
I suppose it how to deal with the software writing the profile... i always used the APS for calculating the profile; maybe Argyll has a better way of calculating profiles?
-
Do you know what is the repeatability of letting the Z3200 measure the chart? If you have 2-3 measurements of the same chart in CGATs format it would be great if you don't mind sharing. I would be curious to do a dE comparison in ColorThink. One good thing to know is whether it beats the repeatability of measuring by hand (probably). I'm also curious to know how close it comes to an iSis.
I will run this test as soon as I can, probably during the weekend, and will report back..
The limitation you pointed out about Argyll Perceptual gamut mapping method is a critical one. I've been working to encourage Graeme to provide another solution to that for quite some time, but it is not really ready yet. The last two versions of Argyll has already started to offer some version of it, but it really requires several more user-controllable options to make it work right. As it is, it is unusable.
That depends on your workflow. I use relative colorimetric 90% of the time. When I want to test/use perceptual I just convert the image to prophoto (the source colorspace I used when creating the profiles) before doing it. Actually, most images I print are in prophoto already, so it is not a big deal to me.
-
Are more patches making your profile better?
I have used 1728 patches in the past, considering that a lot already.
I suppose it how to deal with the software writing the profile... i always used the APS for calculating the profile; maybe Argyll has a better way of calculating profiles?
Difficult to say it seems to me that there is some minor improvement, but you know it may be just a placebo :-)
-
I will run this test as soon as I can, probably during the weekend, and will report back..
Thank you! :)
That depends on your workflow. I use relative colorimetric 90% of the time. When I want to test/use perceptual I just convert the image to prophoto (the source colorspace I used when creating the profiles) before doing it. Actually, most images I print are in prophoto already, so it is not a big deal to me.
It's not about workflow, it's about gamut mapping. The gamut mapping of OOG colors for Rel Col rendering is not user-adjustable, and the way it is done by Argyll and every other solution is to do "colorimetric minimized absolute color error" - the OOG color is mapped to the closest possible color. While it sounds unintuitive, doing this usually hurts regular photographs. Most of the time preserving lightness over chroma causes OOG to shift less visually.
-
It's not about workflow, it's about gamut mapping. The gamut mapping of OOG colors for Rel Col rendering is not user-adjustable, and the way it is done by Argyll and every other solution is to do "colorimetric minimized absolute color error" - the OOG color is mapped to the closest possible color. While it sounds unintuitive, doing this usually hurts regular photographs. Most of the time preserving lightness over chroma causes OOG to shift less visually.
That is the whole debate about Colorimetric versus perceptual, but it may be a matter of workflow. If you print images that are inside the gamut or 98% inside the gamut and the other 2% are not relevant to the image, Relative Colorimetric is perfect. And don't forget: if you want to use perceptual with Argill profiles, you can. You just have to pay attention to do source colorspace.
-
Do you know what is the repeatability of letting the Z3200 measure the chart? If you have 2-3 measurements of the same chart in CGATs format it would be great if you don't mind sharing. I would be curious to do a dE comparison in ColorThink. One good thing to know is whether it beats the repeatability of measuring by hand (probably). I'm also curious to know how close it comes to an iSis.
Hello Samuel,
I measured the same chart 3 times with the Z3200 allowing an interval of a couple of hours between the readings. Here is the DeltaE2000 report comparing the readings:
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 1728
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (1728 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0,09
Max dE: 0,51
Min dE: 0,00
StdDev dE: 0,06
Best 90% - (1554 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0,07
Max dE: 0,16
Min dE: 0,00
StdDev dE: 0,04
Worst 10% - (174 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0,23
Max dE: 0,51
Min dE: 0,16
StdDev dE: 0,07
--------------------------------------------------
I was not expecting such excellent repeatability. I know it is better than what we get hand scanning with de i1 pro II, but I don't know about the iSis.
-
Hello Samuel,
I measured the same chart 3 times with the Z3200 allowing an interval of a couple of hours between the readings. Here is the DeltaE2000 report comparing the readings:
I was not expecting such excellent repeatability. I know it is better than what we get hand scanning with de i1 pro II, but I don't know about the iSis.
Hi Geraldo,
Thank you for the information. I assume that the first reading pass was after sufficient dry down time, not right after the chart was printed? Then the several hours between readings should not matter enough. It would be good to know that the dE differences is almost entirely due to the instrument's limitation, and we are not looking at dry down changing the dE also.
Otherwise the repeatability is about the same as what one can get with careful hand scanning with the i1 Pro II, in my tests. The repeatability is limited by the measuring device in this case - the same i1 Pro base technology. However it is less likely for the automated Z3200 system to make errors due to hand slippage or inconsistent or too fast/slow movement, so human error is minimized. Occasionally I catch an error of about 1 dE2000 when hand scanning in the past. Sometimes a freak accident is much worse. It was good to see confirmation from Damir that it is possible to hack the software to scan any number of patches. If I had a Z3200 and no iSis I would use it for scanning too.
The iSis repeatability is on a whole different level. Here is a comparison of scanning a (more challenging) 2808 patch target. The max dE difference is more than an order of magnitude better and the same could almost be said of the average dE:
Number of Samples: 2808
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (2808 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.01
Max dE: 0.03
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.00
Best 90% - (2526 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.01
Max dE: 0.01
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.00
Worst 10% - (282 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.02
Max dE: 0.03
Min dE: 0.01
StdDev dE: 0.00
That is the whole debate about Colorimetric versus perceptual, but it may be a matter of workflow. If you print images that are inside the gamut or 98% inside the gamut and the other 2% are not relevant to the image, Relative Colorimetric is perfect.
There is no debate here, and I am not trying to incite one. It's not about if Colorimetric or Perceptual is better, it is about how our visual system processes colors and what changes are least obvious when performing gamut mapping. Gamut mapping should not be an aesthetic tool for creative adjustment, it should only strive to minimize visual differences. Neither Colorimetric nor Perceptual rendering is good enough in all the profiles generated by today's commercial software. Here's something interesting for pondering: No one ever said how OOG colors should be treated in Colorimetric rendering. We can look around and see different software packages rendering OOG colors in Rel Col differently. It was possible in a very old software, Color Savvy, to create Perceptual mapping that is exactly like Colorimetric for the in-gamut colors but the OOG color treatment was better, and there were controls to tweak the OOG rendering in beautiful ways. You must have noticed that when soft proofing on matte media, switching between the Rel Col and Perceptual rendering intent the preview changes a lot (have paper white and black ink unchecked). Also how different the tonality is for Perceptual rendering between glossy and matte papers, but not Rel Col. Why should it be so different? It is not in the best examples of Savvy's profiles. I would be just as happy to use Rel Col if BPC worked perfectly all the time and worked better (cause less hue shifting), and if we had options to dictate how OOG colors are mapped, I could care less about Perceptual. We really need more options for controlling OOG color mapping when creating printer profiles.
And don't forget: if you want to use perceptual with Argill profiles, you can. You just have to pay attention to do source colorspace.
Not if one is using the new "-lp" luminance-preserving mapping intent for generating the Perceptual table, which I suggested to Graeme to offer. We have spent a lot of time in discussion about these issues and working towards getting this right. A word of caution, it is not yet working properly so I don't advise to use it. The tone curve issues are resolved and it is now possible to have a tone curve that is even somewhat better than Rel Col - they are very close except for a tiny difference in the shadow tonality roll-off. The available controls which were not designed for this job happen to work brilliantly regardless of the dmax of the media. The in-gamut color mapping is resolved. There are still some ways to go before the mapping is truly luminance-preserving and we also need a control that then lets us trade off OOG colors lightness vs chroma preservation, so a bouquet of profile variants for each printer+paper combo can be made for a variety of OOG color mapping needs.
-
Otherwise the repeatability is about the same as what one can get with careful hand scanning with the i1 Pro II, in my tests. The repeatability is limited by the measuring device in this case - the same i1 Pro base technology. However it is less likely for the automated Z3200 system to make errors due to hand slippage or inconsistent or too fast/slow movement, so human error is minimized. Occasionally I catch an error of about 1 dE2000 when hand scanning in the past. Sometimes a freak accident is much worse. It was good to see confirmation from Damir that it is possible to hack the software to scan any number of patches. If I had a Z3200 and no iSis I would use it for scanning too.
The iSis repeatability is on a whole different level. Here is a comparison of scanning a (more challenging) 2808 patch target. The max dE difference is more than an order of magnitude better and the same could almost be said of the average dE:
There is a reason why the patches are that big on the normal HP Z targets. The spectrometer is not as close to the patches as the Isis etc instruments are. Repeated measurements of the same target (more times loaded on the printer) do not deliver exactly the same spots measured within the patches. First because there is some tolerance on the register of the target sheet in the loading phase, second because the sheet might expand or contract between measurements. With smaller targets, smaller patches and higher precision of the sheet loading this fault could diminish.
On the other hand I was no hero in manual measurements of big targets so I'm happy the repeatability is equal to careful manual scanning with the i1 Pro II.
Averaging several measurement results before creating the profile should be possible with APS.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
There is a reason why the patches are that big on the normal HP Z targets. The spectrometer is not as close to the patches as the Isis etc instruments are. Repeated measurements of the same target (more times loaded on the printer) do not deliver exactly the same spots measured within the patches. First because there is some tolerance on the register of the target sheet in the loading phase, second because the sheet might expand or contract between measurements. With smaller targets, smaller patches and higher precision of the sheet loading this fault could diminish.
On the other hand I was no hero in manual measurements of big targets so I'm happy the repeatability is equal to careful manual scanning with the i1 Pro II.
Averaging several measurement results before creating the profile should be possible with APS.
That is more or less similar to what happens when using the Canon SU-21 spectro accessory for iPF64X0 printers. Do you know the physical size of the patches in mm, edge to edge of the hexagon, not tip to tip?
The iSis has incredible repeatably not because of the closer positioning height of the measurement aperture - in fact the i1 Pro sits closer to the sheet than the measuring head in the iSis. The main advantage over the i1 Pro is how it detects patches. The iSis uses the same i1 spectro technology and indeed in spot read mode the i1 Pro is as repeatable as the iSis. The i1 Pro in scan mode, makes 200 measurements per second and uses an algorithm which throws out bogus measurements made when the measurement aperture is over two adjacent patches. This detection is obviously not ideal for several reasons, but it is simple and works well enough for most. On the iSis, patch detection is physically done in both horizontal and vertical direction. The iSis knows the boundary of where each patch is because it knows what size the patches are (input in i1Profiler), it knows how far it advances the target and it also knows where the measurement head carriage is positioned. There is also some compensation for skew errors, but it is not foolproof and must be avoided as far as possible. As a result, all corrupted patch measurements are thrown out totally reliably.
I don't know which method the on-board spectro on the Z3200 uses for patch detection. If it does not have horizontal physical positioning detection, the repeatability would be mainly limited by software detection of patches, assuming no paper feeding issues. It would be very hard to get it below the already excellent performance that Geraldo has shown.
It should be safe to assume that the distance to the measurement aperture remains more or less the same for stiff papers, over a relatively short period of time, and also after the paper as been allowed to acclimatize to the room conditions. The pinch rollers and vacuum should keep the paper nice and flat over the platten for measurement? I'm not familiar with the Z3200. Paper warping does affect the iSis too and should be avoided as far as possible. The precision of sheet loading is not perfect, which is why I use very large patch sizes for my custom iSis targets. Smaller patches increases the risk of measurement errors, not reduces them.
-
That is more or less similar to what happens when using the Canon SU-21 spectro accessory for iPF64X0 printers. Do you know the physical size of the patches in mm, edge to edge of the hexagon, not tip to tip?
The iSis has incredible repeatably not because of the closer positioning height of the measurement aperture - in fact the i1 Pro sits closer to the sheet than the measuring head in the iSis. The main advantage over the i1 Pro is how it detects patches. The iSis uses the same i1 spectro technology and indeed in spot read mode the i1 Pro is as repeatable as the iSis. The i1 Pro in scan mode, makes 200 measurements per second and uses an algorithm which throws out bogus measurements made when the measurement aperture is over two adjacent patches. This detection is obviously not ideal for several reasons, but it is simple and works well enough for most. On the iSis, patch detection is physically done in both horizontal and vertical direction. The iSis knows the boundary of where each patch is because it knows what size the patches are (input in i1Profiler), it knows how far it advances the target and it also knows where the measurement head carriage is positioned. There is also some compensation for skew errors, but it is not foolproof and must be avoided as far as possible. As a result, all corrupted patch measurements are thrown out totally reliably.
I don't know which method the on-board spectro on the Z3200 uses for patch detection. If it does not have horizontal physical positioning detection, the repeatability would be mainly limited by software detection of patches, assuming no paper feeding issues. It would be very hard to get it below the already excellent performance that Geraldo has shown.
It should be safe to assume that the distance to the measurement aperture remains more or less the same for stiff papers, over a relatively short period of time, and also after the paper as been allowed to acclimatize to the room conditions. The pinch rollers and vacuum should keep the paper nice and flat over the platten for measurement? I'm not familiar with the Z3200. Paper warping does affect the iSis too and should be avoided as far as possible. The precision of sheet loading is not perfect, which is why I use very large patch sizes for my custom iSis targets. Smaller patches increases the risk of measurement errors, not reduces them.
The hexagons measure 15mm side to side, with deviations of 0.2mm though. Anyway 10 patches give 150mm in the three symmetry axis. There is a square patches pattern possible too with again 15mm from side to side.
Observing the movement I assume the positioning is numerical, so physical and not based on throwing out odd numbers when it hits a patch boundary. Based on that and possible paper warping or small deviations in the patch's density I think it could be possible that there are differences between measurements, despite the wider area it measures. Which begs the question whether it measures 600 PPI or 300 PPI printed patches. I assume the last or HP thought 450 PPI would be a nice value in between. I do not expect it ever measures over a patch boundary.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I assume that the first reading pass was after sufficient dry down time, not right after the chart was printed? Then the several hours between readings should not matter enough. It would be good to know that the dE differences is almost entirely due to the instrument's limitation, and we are not looking at dry down changing the dE also.
Of course! Or should I say "yes, unfortunately."? I mean, I would love to improve even more the Delta E but the chart dried for two days before reading, so I don't think the wait between the readings made any difference.
Actually there is no need of "hacking" to use different charts, the color center gives the option to "add" the data needed to create a new test chart, I just never tried and forgot to mention it.
The iSis is really on another league in terms of repeatability! That is truly impressive and made me consider it (once again) as an alternative for the day my Z3200 gets beyond repair. As you use it regularly please tell me how it behaves with thick media, like rough aquarelle paper of 310~350gsm? I heard some conflicting opinions about it in the past.
(...)I would be just as happy to use Rel Col if BPC worked perfectly all the time and worked better (cause less hue shifting), and if we had options to dictate how OOG colors are mapped, I could care less about Perceptual. We really need more options for controlling OOG color mapping when creating printer profiles.
I agree 100%.
Not if one is using the new "-lp" luminance-preserving mapping intent for generating the Perceptual table, which I suggested to Graeme to offer. We have spent a lot of time in discussion about these issues and working towards getting this right. A word of caution, it is not yet working properly so I don't advise to use it. The tone curve issues are resolved and it is now possible to have a tone curve that is even somewhat better than Rel Col - they are very close except for a tiny difference in the shadow tonality roll-off. The available controls which were not designed for this job happen to work brilliantly regardless of the dmax of the media. The in-gamut color mapping is resolved. There are still some ways to go before the mapping is truly luminance-preserving and we also need a control that then lets us trade off OOG colors lightness vs chroma preservation, so a bouquet of profile variants for each printer+paper combo can be made for a variety of OOG color mapping needs.
That is something I am anxious to see working properly. Will give it a try just to see what happens.
I don't know which method the on-board spectro on the Z3200 uses for patch detection. If it does not have horizontal physical positioning detection, the repeatability would be mainly limited by software detection of patches, assuming no paper feeding issues. It would be very hard to get it below the already excellent performance that Geraldo has shown.
I don't know how it handles it internally, but I can tell you what I see: The spectrophotometer does not move in a continuous motion, it moves and stops over each patch to read it. There are also "code bars" at the beginning of each line of hexagons and I believe it helps the system to align properly.
You asked about the size of the hexagons: 15mm would be the maximum diameter of a circle contained inside of the hexagon.
Regards.
-
(...)Which begs the question whether it measures 600 PPI or 300 PPI printed patches. I assume the last or HP thought 450 PPI would be a nice value in between. I do not expect it ever measures over a patch boundary.
Hello Ernst,
Checking the TIFF file color center generates for us to print, it has 300 PPI on the final print size, so I guess 300 PPI is what the system uses.
Regards.
-
The hexagons measure 15mm side to side, with deviations of 0.2mm though. Anyway 10 patches give 150mm in the three symmetry axis. There is a square patches pattern possible too with again 15mm from side to side.
You asked about the size of the hexagons: 15mm would be the maximum diameter of a circle contained inside of the hexagon.
Thanks Ernst and Geraldo. 15mm, very good. Hexagons would be a better option then as squares would be 30% more wasteful in printed area.
Observing the movement I assume the positioning is numerical, so physical and not based on throwing out odd numbers when it hits a patch boundary. Based on that and possible paper warping or small deviations in the patch's density I think it could be possible that there are differences between measurements, despite the wider area it measures.
I don't know how it handles it internally, but I can tell you what I see: The spectrophotometer does not move in a continuous motion, it moves and stops over each patch to read it. There are also "code bars" at the beginning of each line of hexagons and I believe it helps the system to align properly.
Excellent information, thanks Geraldo for that tidbit about the spectrometer stopping over a patch. So the Z3200 does "spot mode" measurements. My re-assessment would be that it's not as good as I would have hoped for spot mode reading. If it were scan mode style reading it would be excellent (because of the speed vs accuracy trade-off). Not being more familiar with the Z3200 spectro operation, I will refrain from making further judgement. Perhaps Ernst is correct that physical positioning variations and paper distances form the majority of the inconsistent measurements.
Which begs the question whether it measures 600 PPI or 300 PPI printed patches. I assume the last or HP thought 450 PPI would be a nice value in between. I do not expect it ever measures over a patch boundary.
Checking the TIFF file color center generates for us to print, it has 300 PPI on the final print size, so I guess 300 PPI is what the system uses.
My preference has always been to print the target using the same quality mode that I print actual prints, which for my iPF8400 is Highest (max no. of passes), which requires 600ppi. I use nearest neighbour resampling and change it to 600ppi before printing, so the Canon Plug-in does not have to mess about with resampling it. It should not matter what ppi is being used at the end of the day, but I just prefer my patch edges to be sharp, not some blurry mess from bilinear or bicubic resampling - that has zero effect on measuring targets in the spot mode style the Z3200 uses. Ensuring the quality setting is the right one is way more important.
Of course! Or should I say "yes, unfortunately."? I mean, I would love to improve even more the Delta E but the chart dried for two days before reading, so I don't think the wait between the readings made any difference.
Actually there is no need of "hacking" to use different charts, the color center gives the option to "add" the data needed to create a new test chart, I just never tried and forgot to mention it.
Thanks for the confirmation! Two days, very good. I'm puzzled that it would not be more consistent. I wonder if the paper stops jiggling about from the rapid movements of the carriage before the measurements are taken. Slight angle differences in the light source striking the surface can make a big difference to the measurement, but I assumed the vacuum would hold the paper down tightly enough for this not to matter. In experiments using the i1 Pro 2 in spot mode, I played with measuring at different distances and it takes a relatively large change to give a 0.5 dE2k difference. I'm not remembering the specifics to qualify the exact distance change but I would hope the Z3200 paper handling is well within these tolerances, otherwise it would wreck havoc even on day-to-day regular printing.
The iSis is really on another league in terms of repeatability! That is truly impressive and made me consider it (once again) as an alternative for the day my Z3200 gets beyond repair. As you use it regularly please tell me how it behaves with thick media, like rough aquarelle paper of 310~350gsm? I heard some conflicting opinions about it in the past.
Part of the reason why I had to get mine was that I needed to have extremely consistent measurements to perform profiling experiments. Hand scanning was too variable with the i1 Pro and later the i1 Pro 2, I needed to know the differences was purely in the target design and not measurement error. In larger patch count targets, patches can have less than 0.5 dE2k difference to one another, so a max error of 0.5 is significant to me (hand measurements usually caused max errors of 0.6-0.7 dE2k in scan mode). However, to scan a 1728 target for normal profiling, that level of accuracy is not needed.
I have not had any issues with scanning thick media. If you can squeeze the sheet under the rollers, it will feed. The measurement carriage is positioned high enough not to smash into anything that fits under the rollers. The trick is to push the sheet a little under and past the rollers first, before starting the scan, so the rollers have already grabbed onto it. I don't rely on them to grab and pull the sheet in, even on thinner papers after I discovered this. You will find as a bonus skew errors would be massively reduced too. I've scanned Canson Aquarelle with no problems, and even better - Lyve Canvas (450gsm) which was coated heavily with Glamour II varnish, making it probably 10% or more thicker still. The iSis is massively convenient. I went with the XL to make scanning larger charts more convenient, but on a cost per inch, the smaller A4 machine is significantly more value for money. I'm massively miffed with X-rite for not supporting M1 measurement on the iSis, which has the separate, necessary UV and white LED lamps. They had to launch a V2 product and screw all of us that own the now previous generation machine. But my iSis works so well I often take it for granted, like any beautiful tool. After learning a few tricks about its operation, I have never had it fail. It should be handled carefully. Setting it down hard on the table won't do it any good. Don't shock it with any kind of vibrations. I've seen evidence of weird things happen to mis-treated iSis-es.
That is something I am anxious to see working properly. Will give it a try just to see what happens.
Have fun! Unfortunately the mapping is not 100% luminance preserving which was what it was designed to do, and I still don't understand why. Hopefully it can be implemented properly in time. (Sent you a PM.)
-
Hi again Geraldo,
Just another thanks for this. I wanted to try this to see if it could be used to make a chart for the printer itself, without creating a Tiff file, and it works.
You basically do everything you suggest, but check "print a color chart for later measurement":
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/select-action.jpg)
Then choose the same as you indicated:
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/chart-size.jpg)
I loaded 17 x 25 Pura Smooth paper and the first sheet loaded fine. The printer printed the target perfectly.
When it came to the second sheet I tried 4 times to load it and kept getting an error message that it wasn't the same size - fix it or cancel.
After a while it occurred to me that the sheets could be just a little wider, etc., so I measured and sure enough, it was wider.
I went back to the box and got out another sheet and it took, then continued and finished scanning.
After that I let the sheets set overnight.
Today, this morning, I loaded the sheet FIRST, as you suggested and followed the rest of the procedure that you outlined in your tutorial.
So, not only can you make 1768 patch profiles for other printers, but also, for the printer itself.
Undoubtedly you know this, but perhaps others may not.
I thought it could and have tried unsuccessfully in the past, but didn't have the conversion software or understanding to change the file suffix to .TXT.
Now I'm good to go when I need a super duty profile.
Thank you again for your great work in sharing your process and information.
Happy New Year brother!
-Mark
-
So Geraldo, or Ernst (if you're still out there),
OK. I printed the 1728 patch target. Got the .TXT file and have a converted .ICC profile.
All good so far. It would be easy to just put the ICC file in the Library, but the printer will not see it unless it is imported.
In order to import an ICC profile into a Z3200ps printer, the file has to be a .oms file to be imported.
How do I get from either .TXT or .ICC to .OMS? so I can import the profile to additional papers?
There must be a way.
Could use your help Geraldo.
Thanks -
Mark
-
How do I get from either .TXT or .ICC to .OMS? so I can import the profile to additional papers?
There must be a way. Could use your help Geraldo.
Hello Mark, here comes the rescue! ;D
I believe I know how to do it, never did it actually.
Color center => Paper Preset management => Profile Options => Install Profile
Select the paper preset to which you want to add the new profile, select the ICC profile from your computer and click next.
That will add the selected profile to the preset. If you export the OMS file it will carry the selected profile embedded o it.
Just out of curiosity, what software are you using to create the ICC profile from the TXT file? Have you decided to give Argyll a try?
-
Hello Mark, here comes the rescue! ;D
I believe I know how to do it, never did it actually.
Color center => Paper Preset management => Profile Options => Install Profile
Select the paper preset to which you want to add the new profile, select the ICC profile from your computer and click next.
That will add the selected profile to the preset. If you export the OMS file it will carry the selected profile embedded o it.
Just out of curiosity, what software are you using to create the ICC profile from the TXT file? Have you decided to give Argyll a try?
Geraldo, you're right - to the rescue is right!
Piece of Cake!
Just made sure the printer was awake, clicked on the paper in Paper preset manager and did as you suggested, and voila, it just installed it.
No problems whatsoever, and it put it right into the library too. Amazing.
Thank you very much Geraldo. You're a smart guy. Excellent.
I couldn't use Argyll - just a little too geeky for me, a mac user. Terminal is not my thing.
Dragged and dropped the .TXT in RGB Drop and bang - no fuss, no muss, no bother, out the other end, the icc profile.
Thanks again, Carlos, now we know how to do both things - make a 1728 profile for other printers and for the Z3200 itself!
Fantastic! Just ultra super fantastic. Muchas Gracias amigo.
Mark
-
Dragged and dropped the .TXT in RGB Drop and bang - no fuss, no muss, no bother, out the other end, the icc profile.
Thanks again, Carlos, now we know how to do both things - make a 1728 profile for other printers and for the Z3200 itself!
Fantastic! Just ultra super fantastic. Muchas Gracias amigo.
Mark
I'm still in the steep learning curve phase of my new Z, and have been building ICC profiles for it with external ICC profiling equipment and software to compare to what the Z produces for itself and also how the Z stacks up against my other printer in color and tonal rendering. Many hours chatting with Mark L. on the phone, and learning from all of you here on LULA as well. The Z's calibration/profiling technology seems to have some very novel features that may hold some good news/bad news for anyone trying to up the Z's profiling game with greater choice in patch counts and perceptual rendering sauce. First, when you calibrate the Z but don't go to the next step and print or measure the 464 patch profile target, I see that the Z still makes ICC profiles available to the enduser. They are placeholder ICC profiles, i.e., installed as "starter profiles" for that media preset and available for use in image editing software like PS. What I haven't figured out so far is if the calibration routine alters the ink channel ramps thus bringing the Z back to a known device state for that media and puts it in a proprietary hidden file associated with that media preset, or whether it's trying to bake in error corrections to the ICC profiles it associates with that media preset. Hopefully it's doing the former, because messing with the ICC profiles, i.e. reediting them to account for device color drift would have potentially undesirable consequences. Also, for glossy/luster photo media presets, there is one ICC placeholder profile for no gloss enhancer (GE) and one for GE. When I picked GE on, and went to the next step of actually creating the first printed and measured 464 patch profile target, then my custom preset showed that the placeholder profile labeled with "GE on" had been replaced with a new one dated with the current date, but the GE-off profile had remained untouched and showed a date that it had been made in 2008. Testing a theory, I chose a media preset for photo paper with OBAs, then calibrated and profiled a photo paper with no OBAs. The profiled GE-on profile softproofed media white point correctly. The placeholder GE-off profile still dutifully softproofed a cool blue whitepoint with media. Clearly, the Z isn't exchanging any measuement data between the two GE-on-GE-off profiles associated with that media. Next, I looked for generic ICC profile or at the very least a recommended media setting for some Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl from the HN website for my Z3200. To my delight, Hahnemuhle provided a .oms file which I was easily able to install as an "additional media" on my Z. Looking at the "view property details", I was able to learn that Hahnemuhle profiling team had used HP Premium Semigloss photo paper as the starting media properties choice (go figure, it was a really lousy choice for reasons I will save for a later discussion). Looking at the ICC profiles that also got installed, it was clear that the placeholder files normally associated with the HP Premium Semigloss preset had been replaced by ones made on Hahemuhle's Z not my Z. My HP utility software then showed a warning triangle for HN's media preset imported as the .oms file. It recommended calibration should be done. That's as far as I've gotten so far, but it suggests (along with some comments made by Mark L about his imported ICC profile output color quality) that if one imports a profile not made by a Z as Mark L did when creating a .oms file, that the imported profile may not have some private embedded tags telling the Z the incoming profile was indeed made on a Z machine. If that's the case, it's a mystery meat profile as far as the Z is concerned, and the Z is likely to default (rightfully so) to it's placeholder profile associated with the original calibration's media properties choice.The problem is that it alters the filename to correspond to the imported profilename, thus making it seem like that profile was accepted when it may not have been. I think this possibility is worth some confirming tests, but I haven't had a chance to run them yet.
Anyway, the good news is if I want to build a custom ICC profile for use with my Z using external profiling software, I have to treat the Z just like I would any other desktop printer. Choose a media setting and calibrate the printer to create your custom preset. Send the Z an untagged profiling target in a no color adjust pipeline (i.e. use Adobe color utility or Apple Colorsync utility to enforce the no color adjustment requirement) and have the Z print it out. Measure and build your custom ICC profile with the software/hardware of your choice (you can indeed use the Z spectrophotometer to measure and produce a text file of measurements made on it's own profiling target design if the patch count is adequate for your needs, and if your custom profiling software can accept that file (both my BasicColor and i1profiler software can indeed read the Z's exported text file, I gather Argyll can, too). Then install the custom profile in your routine OS profile library folder to make it available in PS or other editing/printing software. Choose application manages color, so the Z will receive the custom profile-converted data stream and leave it alone. Choose the media setting in the paper/quality dialogue box you used to make the Z's custom preset. Print the image. Voila, a Z that now very closely matches my other printers' color rendering on output because I used the same profiling software for all my devices. To be continued...
best,
Mark McC-G
-
That's as far as I've gotten so far, but it suggests (along with some comments made by Mark L about his imported ICC profile output color quality) that if one imports a profile not made by a Z as Mark L did when creating a .oms file, that the imported profile may not have some private embedded tags telling the Z the incoming profile was indeed made on a Z machine. If that's the case, it's a mystery meat profile as far as the Z is concerned, and the Z is likely to default (rightfully so) to it's placeholder profile associated with the original calibration's media properties choice.The problem is that it alters the filename to correspond to the imported profilename, thus making it seem like that profile was accepted when it may not have been. I think this possibility is worth some confirming tests, but I haven't had a chance to run them yet.
best,
Mark McC-G
To be clear, Mark, I first named the paper and created a paper calibration based on the preset (Fin Art Paper More Ink):
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/color%20measurement.jpg)
Then I made a target consisting of 1728 patches using my Z's "create a target for later measurement":
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/select-action.jpg)
I selected the color chart option RGB 1728 Patches (12x12x12):
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/chart-size.jpg)
Then I printed the target on two sheets of BC Pura Smooth Paper 17 x 25.
I let that dry overnight. Then I put the pre-printed targets back in and the Z read them and outputted a .cvs file that I changed to .TXT file prior to generation of the .TXT file.
Then I ran the .TXT file through RGB Drop and created an ICC file.
Then I installed the newly generated ICC file in my system Library, where it resides as BCPURAFAMoreink-1728.icc:
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/Library.jpg)
So then I made a print using the icc profile BCPURAFAMoreink-1728.icc that resides in the library using the paper in paper preset management custom papers:
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/Paper%20preset.jpg)
Choosing the paper name for the paper (PRIOR to INSTALLING the RGB DROP icc profile) in paper preset management:
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/print%20settings.jpg)
Then I installed the RGB DROP .icc profile in the PAPER PRESET MANAGEMENT (as shown above) via the "Install ICC Profile":
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/install.jpg)
Note the time date (2017-01-04 15:9:47)
Then I made a print with the RGB Drop ICC file made from the original .TXT file newly installed under the paper name and calibration in PPM
(paper preset management).
I never made a .oms file. I used the virgin RGB DROP .TXT file installed over the original preset.
An oms file is used ONLY for importing and exporting and only can go in additional papers.
Notice that the newly installed icc profile (per Geraldo's suggestion) is in custom papers where it belongs.
This gets rather complicated, and I have made the observation that the print made with the 1728 ICC profile is much different and more colorful and open than both the regular 496 target standard Z icc profile OR the print made from the RGB DROP ICC profile residing in the library alone.
Notice the RGB Drop PPM installed ICC file made from the original .TXT file is now in the library as it should be with the correct prefix:
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/in%20library%20as%20hpz.jpg)
So the question is, does the Z add secret sauce to the "Installed" RGB DROP file or is it the only way the Z properly uses the original printed target .TXT file run through RGB DROP?
The answer is I don't know at this point. But it means there are two alternative methods to print the same ICC profile now.
The oms file has nothing to do with any of it at this point because nothing has been imported or exported. I could export the file resident in the PPM and make an oms file to send to you and you could import that file and it would place it in your additional papers folder.
All of this is complex, and I admire how quickly you have come up to speed. I'm still learning and Geraldo solved a long mysterious puzzle for me, and for that I'm grateful. Good luck on your quest to get to the bottom of things. Perhaps after a few months of working with it something will click that you hadn't thought of and then we will all know the truth.
Best -
Mark L
-
...Then I made a print with the RGB Drop ICC file made from the original .TXT file newly installed under the paper name and calibration in PPM
(paper preset management).
I never made a .oms file. I used the virgin RGB DROP .TXT file installed over the original preset.
An oms file is used ONLY for importing and exporting and only can go in additional papers.
Notice that the newly installed icc profile (per Geraldo's suggestion) is in custom papers where it belongs.
This gets rather complicated, and I have made the observation that the print made with the 1728 ICC profile is much different and more colorful and open than both the regular 496 target standard Z icc profile OR the print made from the RGB DROP ICC profile residing in the library alone.
Notice the RGB Drop PPM installed ICC file made from the original .TXT file is now in the library as it should be with the correct prefix:
(http://z3200.com/images/page-1/in%20library%20as%20hpz.jpg)
So the question is, does the Z add secret sauce to the "Installed" RGB DROP file or is it the only way the Z properly uses the original printed target .TXT file run through RGB DROP?
The answer is I don't know at this point. But it means there are two alternative methods to print the same ICC profile now.
Mark L
OK, I see from your explanation (thank you, the edited screenshots must have been a notable amount of work :)) that there is an "install ICC profile" command not to be confused with importing an .oms file. That said, if the "installed" profile has now been renamed (the filename clearly got modified on import and now shows up in your profile library as another ICC profile, not the original profile built by the RGB drop application) then it may also not even be the same profile internally anymore. That would explain why your result where printing with PS manages color using the two differently named profiles, although supposedly one just being an HP installation copy of the other, produced different print colors.
That the two profiles are not true copies of each other can easiily be verified with utilities like Colorthink, perhaps the Apple Colorsync utility, perhaps even by just softproofing in PS. Why would HP allow one to "install" an existing profile but then alter it? I suspect that my have resulted from software programmer's well intentioned but not well thought out logic. It could be argued that an ICC profile not made by a Z printer for a Z printer, say one made for a Canon or Epson printer, should not be "installed" on the Z. The Z software has to have a way of identifying those incoming profiles which it would logically do by looking for some HP embedded private tags in the profile. Using a profile built for other printers would more often than not lead to garbage results, hence substituting that mystery meat profile with the original HP placeholder ICC profile associated with the chosen media preset, would be a safer bet. A still safer bet and an even clearer explanation for the enduser, however, would be for the HP utility simply not to produce a copy at all (i.e, don't even rename it), but merely inspect any ICC profile you want to "install" on the Z for the private HP tags, and if it doesn't find them, alert you with a warning that this profile should be remade or inconsistent color may happen.
Mark L. - I did warn you in our first phone call that I somehow manage to stumble upon all the quirky hardware/software oddities very quickly with all the new equipment I use, didn't I? :)
That said, I am getting on well with my new Z. It's a really cool printer.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark (MHMG),
OK, I'm afraid this is somewhat of a rabbit hole that we're chasing ghost rabbits around.
This morning, after the last print has dried down, I'm seeing less difference between the print made from the stand alone icc profile and the print made from the "install icc profile" now residing in the printer and library.
That "installed profile" was not renamed, it was installed from the original folder containing the icc profile from RGB Drop.
So, conceivably, I made a hasty judgement mentioning the differences between the stand alone profile printed image and the installed profile printed image. This morning, I'm hard pressed to see much difference. My eye and mind WANT to see a difference, but actually, there doesn't seem to be as much as I originally thought.
So I may have led you on a wild goose chase here and you may be making false assumptions about what the printer does or does not do when installing the profile. This is what happens when a non-scientific approach or aesthetic judgement is applied to an unfinished print (meaning not dried down) and not corroborated by measurement. No doubt you could measure both prints and might likely say they are the same.
I do remember your saying that you could easily find the querks or bugs etc., however, I want to be sure you have the correct information before you come to conclusion based on incorrect evidence that I have contributed prematurely.
I think your original thesis that we discussed over the phone was right. An unmanaged profile may be printed strictly from the icc profile in the library. Yet I now believe that when using the "install profile" feature of paper preset management, the program does NOT mess with the file in installing it, and it indeed does just bring it in untouched.
The advantage to this is that it resides where it is intended to reside, in the list, and it is available to export, which in my case is a plus, having 3 Z3200 printers. That means I need not make all new profiles for each printer, and can just import the one.
OK Mark, I'm having to saying "uncle".
This has been an interesting exercise. I'm off to choose a different image, soft proof it with the RGB DROP profile and try again to make a print that I know well and have examples of, and will look for significant differences in color quality.
Take care, glad you are enjoying the printer -
Mark L
(Edit for spelling and word check "in-corrections"
-
Mark (MHMG),
OK, I'm afraid this is somewhat of a rabbit hole that we're chasing ghost rabbits around.
(Edit for spelling and word check "in-corrections"
OK, an inviting rabbit hole indeed, Although "installing" a profile so that it is listed in the Custom Presets probably appears to have merit, I'm totally OK just using an externally built profile in PS manages color because I have that external profiling capability, and one can still call the appropriate Custom media Preset to establish what media, ink density, and gloss optimizer settings should be used in conjunction with said externally built profile. In this respect, as I noted before the Z3200 can behave like any other printer with a standard driver.
That said, I truly think the Z3200ps model should be able to routinely print and measure bigger targets, then create an ICC profile automatically, but it's still not clear to me that the Z3200ps can do that with ease. Call it the "advance profiling solution" if you like (the Z3200 literature actually still advertises that APS comes standard on the Z3200ps model), but one shouldn't have to go through so much of a work-around to use the 1728 patch target. Seems out of character for any machine with such a nice spectro and profiling capability already built into it.
best,
Mark McC-G
-
In one of our phone conversations, you mentioned that the embedded spectrophotometer is a great "entry level" system for photographers who don't have the equipment to build their own profiles. The optimized profiles that come out of the machine with the standard target it uses are entirely dependent upon the preset choices made. When the right preset is chosen, and right amount of "tweaking" is done (somewhat of an art), the printer is capable of creating fairly good profiles for the average user who is not interested in much more involved profiles. I agree with this.
To go past the standard means of profile making involves a lot of testing and understanding to accomplish significant profiles that are workable on the level you are discussing as a color scientist. Making these advanced profiles is not easy, correct.
I'm not sure what the deal actually is regarding the APS inclusion in the Z3200. It certainly is not the same as the actual APS software.
Over the 10 years that the printer has been available, the software has been evolving and devolving in some cases.
Unfortunately, the achilles heel of the printer is now the software and documentation. In many respects this is where HP has dropped the ball.
Look for information such as what Geraldo has posted on how to make profiles for other printers, and it's just not there. Nothing to be found that I can see. Yet indeed, there is that capability.
The printer remains somewhat mysterious without the documentation of more advanced features being accessible. Yet there are people who make an effort to share their knowledge, and it becomes somewhat of a cult following.
Certainly this is true in regard to the Z3100 which is no longer supported, yet much information remains available and many people still continue to use their printers.
I agree that it is not easy to make an advanced profile at 1728 patches, yet it is doable, and with more practice, it might become easier.
What you bring to the table here, Mark, is a critical eye and voice, based on a great deal of history and experience, all underpinned with an incredible knowledge base. I hope you will be able to see the potential for advanced work with this printer (which I know you are experimenting with), but also temper you criticisms based on how the printer performs for a less advanced segment who are far ahead using standard in-house created Z profiles for any paper they choose.
At any rate, having your insights and reports is invaluable and welcome indeed to all who are considering buying the printer. Not all of us can afford profiling systems, or the time to create profiles with such exacting standards. Not to mention the time or money to experiment on many levels to understand fully the outcomes of those experiments.
From that standpoint, your work becomes critical. The experimentation you do deserves funding, and I urge folks to visit your website and consider making donations ( Aardenburg Imaging Website (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) ). In order to do a thorough job evaluating, reporting, and innovating with this printer and all others you work with, it requires simply put, time and money.
At any rate, you have my thanks for the work you do and the time you contribute on so many levels investigating the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of these systems.
Best wishes,
Mark L
-
In one of our phone conversations, you mentioned that the embedded spectrophotometer is a great "entry level" system for photographers who don't have the equipment to build their own profiles. The
And I still stand by that comment! The 464 patch basic calibration and profiling feature is way cool and makes a lot of sense because it gets the printer up and running fast with only a 20 minute time to measure the patches and create a custom ICC profile plus it saves on paper. And the photographer or novice printmaker doesn't have to get bogged down on calibration and advanced profiling subtleties. However, with all that instrumentation and calibration sophistication already built into the Z, it just seems regrettable HP chose not to make the 1728 patch target option just as easy to invoke by novice users as the 464 patch, i.e., use 464 patches when you need to get a new paper into the job queue quickly or want to make a few print samples to evaluate a new paper before making a big production out of it; use the 1728 option when you have the time to create a smoother and presumably more accurate profile.
best,
Mark McC-G
-
Between Reply #11 and #14 Samuel and I were discussing the repeatability of the chart reading procedure using the Z3200 built-in spectrophotometer. He suggested a Delta-E 2000 report comparing 3 data files generated by reading the same chart 3 times. I performed the test and was quite satisfied with the results that pointed a good repeatability, not on the same league of the iSis but better than the most careful hand scanning using the i1 Pro.
Later on I had second thoughts about the test because my busy day prevented me from reading the chart 3 times in sequence, there was a gap of a few hours between each reading and the printed chart was laying around. We handle printed charts very carefully before using them, but after the profile generation they are little more than trash, so I was not absolutely sure the difference between readings was entirely due to the level of repeatability of the system.
Today I had to profile a new paper and was not in a rush, so I took the chance to repeat the test properly, taking proper care of the charts between the readings. This is the result of 3 subsequent readings of a chart that dried overnight:
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 1728
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (1728 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0,05
Max dE: 0,40
Min dE: 0,00
StdDev dE: 0,04
Best 90% - (1554 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0,03
Max dE: 0,08
Min dE: 0,00
StdDev dE: 0,02
Worst 10% - (174 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0,14
Max dE: 0,40
Min dE: 0,08
StdDev dE: 0,07
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
An average DeltaE of 0,05 is great news. This level of repeatability is, obviously, not as good as the iSis but is very good and it is way better than the most careful hand scanning.
I will repeat the test every time I have the chance and average the results.
Regards.
-
Just a quick tip based on my previous exp.
What I've done was instead of using 1728 patches, I have created myself a new chart with more patches, and you can use the Z printer to measure it only and export it for i1profiler to generate the icc profile.
spot measure is more accurate than row measure based on what i see as well.
But like the original poster said, the patch is quite big which will waste so much paper on something like 2000+ target.
aaron
-
I still have a question about printing with no colormanagement on a Z3100.
Since i print from photoshop i cannot choose it (anymore).
I know this item has come up before in the recent years of LULA, but cannot seem to find it.
Can somebody here help me out?
-
I still have a question about printing with no colormanagement on a Z3100.
Since i print from photoshop i cannot choose it (anymore).
I know this item has come up before in the recent years of LULA, but cannot seem to find it.
Can somebody here help me out?
Looks like the best option is to follow the instructions from this thread. Check replies from #14 to #19.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114907.msg950764#msg950764
Regards.
-
Looks like the best option is to follow the instructions from this thread. Check replies from #14 to #19.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114907.msg950764#msg950764
Regards.
Thank you Geraldo, Doug Gray, Mark McCormick and also Ernst Dinkla for helping me out - i have now 3 different solutions that work! :)
Viva l'internet!
-
I use Adobe Color Printer Utility to print targets with no color management.
Mac or PC.
HERE (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/no-color-management-option-missing.html)
-
I use Adobe Color Printer Utility to print targets with no color management.
Mac or PC.
HERE (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/no-color-management-option-missing.html)
Mark, thanks,
that is one of the three solutions i got...
the other- attach a profile to the document and the same profile to the destination- so Photoshop alters nothing ( no blackpoint compensation+ rel colorimetric)
a special ICC profile is made for this use called 'ISO 22028-2 ROMM RGB profile" The profile is actually an altered profphoto ICC but now turned into a printer profile, but it is not necessary.
the third possibility is just plain print from the colorsync utlility itself.
open the target and print as target...
-
Good posts never die. As doesn't my Z3200.
This seems excellent news to Z3200 owners if they want to create very good profiles using the Z3200's internal spectrophotometer -- whether for other printers or apparently the Z3200 itself. For me, I'm in the midst of following Mark Lindquist's notes (http://http://z3200.com/Making_Profiles_For_HP-Z3200_Printers.htm) on how to create a better profile for the Z3200 than its canned programming seems capable of (print just started to dry). A few questions:
1. I am unsure I understand Geraldo's quote further below (I am certain it's my ignorance). Does this mean the Argyll profile is useful only in printing/converting using relative colorimetric? Should I create both ICC sets and use one for strictly relative colorimetric work and another for conversions to perceptual? As background, I soft proof ProPhoto RGB TIFFs using relative colorimetric in Photoshop, but render them usually out of PS or LR in perceptual, and sometimes using HP's 16 bit web-based RIP.
2. I've never understood why only RGB (and not CMYK profiles) are used to profile printers that have both sets of inks. If someone could lift this burden, I'd be grateful.
Thanks
Before we create the profile I must explain something: Argyll profiles can be excellent if you use them properly. They work perfectly with Relative Colorimetric but if you want perceptual there is a catch: You must specify the source colorspace when creating the profile. That means you will have a profile that is usable for conversions from any colorspace using relative colorimetric, but only from one colorspace when using perceptual. If you use perceptual converting from a different colorspace the result will not be as precise as it could be.
That is not a big problem if you standardize your printing workflow, always exporting files using, let's say, ProPhotoRGB before printing. You may also create different profiles to convert from different workspaces (and please name them in a way that makes sense).
So, before the final step you may want to copy the source colorspace file to the "bin" folder. Let's assume we copied the "ProPhoto.icm" to the "bin" folder.
Now it is time to create the profile. On the command prompt type:
colprof.exe -v -qh -S ProPhoto.icm -cmt -dpp FILENAME
It may take a few minutes to process depending on the processing power of your computer. In the end you will have the FILENAME.icm file ready to install and use.
-
Good posts never die. As doesn't my Z3200.
2. I've never understood why only RGB (and not CMYK profiles) are used to profile printers that have both sets of inks. If someone could lift this burden, I'd be grateful.
Thanks
With the RGB inks in the 12 ink set of a Z3xxx you can not make a full color print. Papers can not reflect enough light for additive RGB mixing and that is the only way RGB colors can create full color images. That in contrast with light emitting/transmitting displays where enough light is emitted through the RGB pixels. It would be interesting though whether the RGB inks of the Zxxx ink set could be addressed independently (with a very flexible RIP) and print on a transparent foil in additive dithering and displayed with light thrown through it. The inks are actually red, mint green and violet so not ideal either for that task. "interesting" as in having too much time and experimenting as an artist. Like I have done ages ago with RGB inks silkscreen printed in a line raster on foil.
The RGB profiling is aimed at OEM drivers that have their color management at the RGB side of the conversion from RGB images to CMYKetc ink sets, so called RGB-device printer color management. The CMYK profiling is aimed at RIPs that have their color management at the other side of the RGB>CMYK (and CMYK space>Printer CMYK) conversion or maybe better described; have their color management on the conversion itself.
The RGB inks in the Zxxx printers have a different task; they replace mixes of the LcMY inks at certain color hue angles when the required saturation gets too high for resp MY, LcY, MLc ink mixes. So less of the LcMY inks are used there and more of the RGB inks. It is comparable to the use of the grey inks where the low saturation mixes are gradually replaced by the grey inks till neutral only contains grey/black inks. At that side to create more consistent neutrality.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Good posts never die. As doesn't my Z3200.
Thanks! ;D
1. I am unsure I understand Geraldo's quote further below (I am certain it's my ignorance). Does this mean the Argyll profile is useful only in printing/converting using relative colorimetric? Should I create both ICC sets and use one for strictly relative colorimetric work and another for conversions to perceptual? As background, I soft proof ProPhoto RGB TIFFs using relative colorimetric in Photoshop, but render them usually out of PS or LR in perceptual, and sometimes using HP's 16 bit web-based RIP.
That statement/behavior from Argyll almost fried my brain too. The thing is, their profiles work perfectly for RelCol conversions. For perceptual intent you should specify the input colorspace during the profile creation. That means you will have a profile that can only (properly) render images from that colorspace, lets say, AdobeRGB. Of course you can create several profiles from the same data file, one for AdobeRGB, one for sRGB, one ProPhoto... and choose the right one when you need.
Now, I can't understand why you softproof using RelCol and prints using Perceptual. You should use the same!
Regards.
-
Thanks Geraldo. I think I got it. I always render my files now out of Phocus to ProPhoto RGB, then take them into LR, PS and other ProPhoto compatible plugins in my workflow. And I pretty much always print in relative, so unless you or someone corrects me, I'll follow method 2 in your first series of posts.
Proofing in RelCol and printing in perceptual is a small part of a relatively new larger proofing process for me. Since you asked, I use ColorThink to identify out of gamut colors of an image I'm about to print. Then I manipulate those specific OOG colors using PS hue/saturation layers with luminosity curve masks to push the offending colors into print gamut, checking on the results of that against the soft proofing gamut warnings in PS. Because PS's gamut warnings do not identify all OOG colors and round tripping to CT is a pain, when I get most or all of the PS gamut warnings to disappear, I proof print in Relcol first to see if I care about the differences, then aim to final print in perceptual because at least in theory that preserves at-the-margin hidden color detail. Having typed that out and reflecting on my experience so far, the RelCol print is the least important part, and I might just as well rely on the perceptual rendering proofs since I'm getting pretty darn close using PS gamut warnings anyway. Will save paper too. ;)
Thanks to Ernst too!
-
I now have everything uploaded and have a couple of comments.
Importantly for those following this thread, the original intent of this thread is to use the Z3200's internal spectrophotometer to create profiles for other printers. In contrast, I like some other followers am attempting to create a better profile for my Z3200ps (version B) using an expanded color profile described in the first few posts. This is a larger gamut profile that natively prints and scans by the Z3200, but does not appear at least to me to natively process and upload. Manual tweaks like this seem capable to improve the Z3200's printing gamut a bit.
1. Looking with ColorThink my "before" printing gamut (created with the Z3200's canned hardware and programming) and the "after" gamut (created with the much larger sample, run through Argyll), I'm just barely over the fence that rendering of the larger profile is worth the time, money and effort. It seems for now to be. The new gamut appears well matched to the old and maybe up to 3-5% bigger overall. Worthwhile to explore.
2. I ended up following Geraldo's original instructions rather than a few well intended offshoots here and elsewhere. Very well done Geraldo. For Mac users, you may need to include root directories in the terminal program names and file names as I did.
3. I am having soft proofing issues with the new gamut. All appears normal in Photoshop, but Lightroom (which I usually print from) now shows the printer gamut blown out. Probably user error, possibly something else.
4. Simultaneously I am working with CHROMiX on a custom built profile for the same paper I am profiling here. The first round of that separate process is encouraging in that the printer gamut appears to be much larger (Maybe 15% in ColorThink, smaller in places too), but appears from tonight more difficult to install.
We'll see how it goes.
-
Hello Guys;
I have been trying to follow the above steps but am getting a lot of errors with both ICCGen and the Argyll software when trying to convert the .txt file to .icc...I am using Windows 10 64bith.
I have printed my color patch and also got the part of scanning and creating the .txt color profile. I just cannot convert this into an ICC profile.
Both are attached...
Is there an easier way to convert the .txt to .icc Or if someone is kind enough to do it for me so I can get started at the least for now while I figure it out.
-
Is there an easier way to convert the .txt to .icc Or if someone is kind enough to do it for me so I can get started at the least for now while I figure it out.
I have attached an ICC profile made from your .txt file using BasicColor dropRGB software. DropRGB works seamlessly with the Z3200 generated .csv files, and it produces outstanding results. It doesn't get any easier than dropRGB to make high quality profiles. However, it's pretty expensive, so there's that.
Other software, for example, i1Profiler, doesn't like some of the formatting in the Z3200 text file. You can edit the formatting in Excel or other text editing app to get it to work. Primarily, the Z3200 adds data beyond the 730nm band that needs to be removed for i1Profiler to accept it. I don't know what your issues are with ICCGEN/Argyll, but chances are it's a similar file format irregularity that may need to be fixed in Excel, etc.
Note that I didn't change the name of your target when building the ICC profile, so the attached profile doesn't reveal any info about what printer/ink/media this ICC profile is for. If you simply edit the filename, the internal tag won't reflect your changes, and Photoshop displays only the internal tag not the filename, so your ICC profile is going to show up in the list with its original filename.
-
Can't thank you and Mark enough!!! If it wasn't for you guys I would have discarded this machine!!!
Attached is a photo of my first print from the z3200 after color calibration etc
What do you guys think?
I must say though I spent half a roll of Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag to get to this stage lol Very expensive effort I must say :-)
-
Looks like your Z3200 has taken flight again! I admire your persistence :)
Make just a few dozen 24x36 or larger prints to suit your image quality expectations, and your Z3200 investment will soon have earned its keep compared to jobbing the work out to a high quality lab.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I have attached an ICC profile made from your .txt file using BasicColor dropRGB software. DropRGB works seamlessly with the Z3200 generated .csv files, and it produces outstanding results. It doesn't get any easier than dropRGB to make high quality profiles. However, it's pretty expensive, so there's that.
Other software, for example, i1Profiler, doesn't like some of the formatting in the Z3200 text file. You can edit the formatting in Excel or other text editing app to get it to work. Primarily, the Z3200 adds data beyond the 730nm band that needs to be removed for i1Profiler to accept it. I don't know what your issues are with ICCGEN/Argyll, but chances are it's a similar file format irregularity that may need to be fixed in Excel, etc.
Note that I didn't change the name of your target when building the ICC profile, so the attached profile doesn't reveal any info about what printer/ink/media this ICC profile is for. If you simply edit the filename, the internal tag won't reflect your changes, and Photoshop displays only the internal tag not the filename, so your ICC profile is going to show up in the list with its original filename.
If i understand correctly- when having measured the colorspots you get a text-file with the measurements.
Now the next thing is to build a profile and if i understand that can be done in many ways.
Is 'Drop RGB' just one of those methods and produces good results?
I have a non postcript Z3100 and bought APS for profiling.
Could it be that 'Drop RGB' might give me a significant different icc than with APS?
Since i have never been very happy with the APS profiles i am interested.
-
If i understand correctly- when having measured the colorspots you get a text-file with the measurements.
Now the next thing is to build a profile and if i understand that can be done in many ways.
Is 'Drop RGB' just one of those methods and produces good results?
I have a non postcript Z3100 and bought APS for profiling.
Could it be that 'Drop RGB' might give me a significant different icc than with APS?
Since i have never been very happy with the APS profiles i am interested.
You've asked one of those "it depends" kind of questions. Optimized ICC profiles start first and foremost with choosing best media settings on the printer, then printing and measuring a color chart (usually 900+ patches at a minimum) to get clean and verifiable measurement data (this often requires comparing two or more sets of measurements then eliminating fliers and averaging the good data sets together), finally running though a profiling software known to produce good profiles from good data sets. DropRGB is one app that does it with utter simplicity and has data optimization algorithms as well (presumably to detect and ignore fliers in the measurement data). i1Profiler, the older Profilemaker 5, Argyll, etc., also have a reputation for building great profiles as well, and no doubt others can be added to this incomplete list. HP's APS solution is now over a decade old, so may well go back to Profilemaker 4 days (before Xrite bought out Gretag Macbeth and Monaco). As such, it may or may not be as good as the state of the art today.
Given wise media settings and clean measurement data, the biggest difference in how an ICC profile is mapping the source image colors for any given printer/ink/media combination, IMO, tends to occur with apps that have proprietary mapping algorithms for the perceptual rendering tag, but even recol/wBPC Is not standardized to the point where the enduser won't find differences between the output from various profiling apps. As such, I don't endorse one app over another. I use more than one myself to build custom profiles, and I tend to think of the results as a suite of ICC profiles where dropRGB is my "go to" profile, but others may help to settle a problematic image file in a way that makes the final edits easier, say for example, banding in a blue sky gradient that shows up when using one profile or rendering intent but not another.
If you are comfortable with a command line interface, I'd download Argyll, and compare its output to what you are getting with APS. If you see useful differences, then welcome to the club of OCD printmakers who like to add various profiling flavors to their image editing toolkit ;)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
………...
Now it is time to create the profile. On the command prompt type:
colprof.exe -v -qh -S ProPhoto.icm -cmt -dpp FILENAME
………...
I know this is an old post and apologies for reactivating it, but I wanted to give Argyll a try.
I think it is an excellent guide and kudo's and thanks go to Geraldo.
Following it, all seems well.
However executing the above mentioned command in this form:
colprof.exe -v -gh -S ProPhoto.icm -cmt -dpp profile_name
leads to the following error:
Creating Gamut Mapping
Finding Source Colorspace Perceptual Gamut
Finding Source Colorspace Saturation Gamut
Loading Image Source Gamut 'h'
Input file 'h' error : Unable to open file 'h' for readingcolprof.exe: Error - Reading source gamut 'h' failed
Now, looking at the syntax there is no -gh parameter. There is a -g parameter, but it expects a subsequent src.gam filename that it can read (from ARgyll CMS help command):
-g src.gam Use source image gamut as well for output profile gamut mapping
So my question is what to do with the -gh in Geraldo's post.
-
Ahh, Tony noticed that the command contains a parameter -qh and I typed -gh.
That solved the issue.
Thanks a lot, Tony!
-
Following it, all seems well.
However executing the above mentioned command in this form:
colprof.exe -v -gh -S ProPhoto.icm -cmt -dpp profile_name
leads to the following error:
Creating Gamut Mapping
I am an Argyll user and would note that you should not use '-S ProPhoto.icm' in the colprof command as it will skew your profile and make your prints look a bit dull. See Graeme's notes: http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/colprof.html#S I use AdobeRGB in this command.
-
OK, good to know. Thanks Alan
-
Hi, necro an old topic... (but a key one!). I don't see a "Color Measurement" menu option. I am using HP Utility 1.17.0.3 (the latest, I believe) on Win10 x64, and I have a Z3100ps GP. (I also have the APS but I never installed/used it, because my monitors have their own colour management options.)
When I open Color Center > Paper Preset Management, the last option in the right-hand column is "Restore Factory ICC Profile". I don't have the "Color Management" option with the "i1 color" icon that is shown in the screenshot in Geraldo's original post.
Any ideas why I don't see this option? Is it somehow limited to the Z3200 series only and not avialable for the Z3100? Do I need to install the (outdated) APS package?
Thanks