Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: shewhorn on July 15, 2010, 09:15:24 pm
-
I'm wondering if anyone a) knows the answer to this question and/or has any suggestions...
So I have a bunch of papers that I'm adding via the Media Configuration Tool. You get to the point where it prints out the various test prints at different ink levels. I find the patterns that are printed to be barely useful so I'm trying to create my own test pattern so I can perhaps approach this from a more scientific standpoint. At the very least I would like to be able to measure a black patch. You'd think Canon would have put a patch of black in their standard test print that one could measure with a spectro but nope. I figure at the very least this can tell me whether or not laying down more ink is giving me blacker blacks. I intend to have some other test patches of saturated colors in there as well. I figure if I measure them all and I hit a point where laying down more ink isn't making a difference, then there isn't much of a point in laying down any more ink.
Okay... on to my problem. My test image is a 16 bit TIFF, 300 ppi @ 23"x6.333..." (6900x1900 pixels). When I go to select that image in the MCT it tells me I can't use that TIFF image but it gives no reason as to why. Is it bit depth, is it the size??? The manual makes no mention of this.
Cheers, Joe
-
I find the patterns that are printed to be barely useful so I'm trying to create my own test pattern so I can perhaps approach this from a more scientific standpoint. At the very least I would like to be able to measure a black patch.
I appreciate your frustration and desire for something more scientific. I've been working with RIPs and tweaking optimal media densities since the mid 90s and you'd think there would be a more impressive implementation than this. There are ways of scientifically determining optimal ink limits without subjective visual analysis.
One thing you can do (if you have the full version of ColorBurst) is to use ColorBurst's Linearization target for the MCT test image. Measure your test prints in CB SpectralVision utility and load the saved Lin file in CB. From there you can graph out the results and look for the density plateau, or even better, the chroma plateau. Yeay for science!
I figure if I measure them all and I hit a point where laying down more ink isn't making a difference, then there isn't much of a point in laying down any more ink.
The maximum density usually isn't necessarily the optimal one. When we compare ink densities next to chroma values you'll find that they increase together up to a certain point at which the chroma will start to fall as the density continues to increase. This chroma spike usually occurs pretty close to maximum density but the difference is important.
I look forward to the day when we can stick a new piece of paper into the printer and have the printer itself determine the optimal total ink limits and linearizations based on actual measurements from the media. The technology is here, the printer implementation is not (not even on the HP Z series that don't go this far).
Okay... on to my problem. My test image is a 16 bit TIFF, 300 ppi @ 23"x6.333..." (6900x1900 pixels). When I go to select that image in the MCT it tells me I can't use that TIFF image but it gives no reason as to why. Is it bit depth, is it the size??? The manual makes no mention of this.
The size is definitely too large! The max size is something like 4x7 inches at 300ppi - consult the literature on this as I can't recall off the top of my head. Make a small 4x5 inch 300ppi file and save it as both 16 and 8 bits and print them both. Then you'll have your answer as to bit depth!
Check out the "Onsight Media Selection Image" at http://www.on-sight.com/downloads/ (http://www.on-sight.com/downloads/) It's not bad for basic measurement and the subjective visual analysis of linearity, gamut, shadow detail, and ink bleeding and smudging.
-
I think there are some limitations on the TIFF format that the MCT can read, although it's been a while since I did this so I don't remember the exact details. If your TIFF has LZW or ZIP compression, try re-saving it without any compression. I can't remember if it has to be 8-bit or not. I don't recall there being any limitation on size, although I suppose there may be some limit on total pixel dimensions that I never encountered.
My approach was to use a 1-page profile test chart, and then create a profile from each of the ink settings and look at gamut, black point, etc. Once I identified the best one I'd re-profile using a larger patch count.
-
My approach was to use a 1-page profile test chart, and then create a profile from each of the ink settings and look at gamut, black point, etc. Once I identified the best one I'd re-profile using a larger patch count.
Ah yes - the Bill Atkinson approach! That's even slower and more tedious but works well. It's fun to watch the gamut shape morph slightly from one to another.
-
Ah yes - the Bill Atkinson approach! That's even slower and more tedious but works well. It's fun to watch the gamut shape morph slightly from one to another.
Thanks for the replies everyone. I don't have the Colorburst RIP so I'm going to have to get creative. It would be nice if Canon made the brute force method of making media types for every iteration of ink output a bit easier but they kind of want you to run the print feed calibration every time which just makes it a bit tedious. Canon support says there's no way around it. I understand that there's a different version of the Media Configuration Tool for paper manufacturers and I'm asking around to see how one might get a hold of that. So far Canon tech support doesn't know.
Cheers, Joe
-
I understand that there's a different version of the Media Configuration Tool for paper manufacturers and I'm asking around to see how one might get a hold of that. So far Canon tech support doesn't know.
Got it - don't bother! Stay away from this stuff if tedious doesn't equal fun.
-
Got it - don't bother! Stay away from this stuff if tedious doesn't equal fun.
I can handle a bit of tedious if need be. Work is mostly fun... not always fun but mostly fun. If I didn't have to build media types for about 15 different papers I'd definitely go the brute force route but I'm still holding out hope for a somewhat more sophisticated approach.
-
I can handle a bit of tedious if need be. Work is mostly fun... not always fun but mostly fun. If I didn't have to build media types for about 15 different papers I'd definitely go the brute force route but I'm still holding out hope for a somewhat more sophisticated approach.
I wonder if you could do the scientific approach with the demo version of ColorBurst? You wouldn't be printing through Colorburst, and spectralVision doesn't require a dongle.
-
I wonder if you could do the scientific approach with the demo version of ColorBurst? You wouldn't be printing through Colorburst, and spectralVision doesn't require a dongle.
I was actually browsing around their website and had that thought as well. One little detail though, it would appear as if Colorburst only supports Epson printers at the moment.
Cheers, Joe
-
I was actually browsing around their website and had that thought as well. One little detail though, it would appear as if Colorburst only supports Epson printers at the moment.
Doesn't matter because you won't be printing out of ColorBurst at all - you'll be printing from the MCT tool and analyzing the results in CB.
-
Doesn't matter because you won't be printing out of ColorBurst at all - you'll be printing from the MCT tool and analyzing the results in CB.
BTW, do you know if there's a RIP which support ipf8300 and is able to use all 7 colors (CMYKRGB)? I am also fighting a bit with the media configuration tool and would like to try demo version of such RIP to compare the process.
-
BTW, do you know if there's a RIP which support ipf8300 and is able to use all 7 colors (CMYKRGB)? I am also fighting a bit with the media configuration tool and would like to try demo version of such RIP to compare the process.
You mean all 12 inks? THere are lots of RIPs that support Canon printers now including those from CGS, EFI, Ergosoft, GMG, ONYX, Wasatch, but I wouldn't bother. The driver is where it's at, especially on the x300 printers. If the MCT tool is frustrating you, you'll really be frustrated with a RIP.
-
You mean all 12 inks?
Yup, 12 inks of 7 hues (pardon my English if it is not exact :-)
THere are lots of RIPs that support Canon printers now including those from CGS, EFI, Ergosoft, GMG, ONYX, Wasatch, but I wouldn't bother. The driver is where it's at, especially on the x300 printers. If the MCT tool is frustrating you, you'll really be frustrated with a RIP.
I hope to be not, but not sure as I didn't try it yet. What I would like to have is a linearized output on third party papers. One would think Canon/Epson/HP would provide it with driver software, when there are devices (spectrometers or densitometers) capable of it built in the printers. But it looks like it is their business strategy to drive us away from these papers as much as possible.
What annoys me on MCT, is that there's not much info on what are the ink limits for various presets, whether special 1-5 and 6-10 differ in total ink limit, or also in limiting black differently from other colors, etc. (I have tried sp6 to sp10 on Tecco matte paper here and it looks like the black is limited similarly in sp6 and sp9?) I have looked on few of the RIPs you mentioned, but it is not much clear from their web pages, whether they drive the printer ourself or thru the driver and whether they are capable of using the secondary colors (RGB in Canon's case). So far I have only found ColorBurst stating that it can use additional inks besides CMYK so I might try it on our Epson 7900 to get some experience. I was hoping to try it on ipf8300 though.
-
Doesn't matter because you won't be printing out of ColorBurst at all - you'll be printing from the MCT tool and analyzing the results in CB.
I might give that a try then. I've somewhat resigned myself to the fact that I'm going to have to just spend the time and money to create a bunch of different media types. It just wouldn't sit right knowing that there's a chance I could have done a better job but did not spend the time to do it.
Cheers, Joe
-
I might give that a try then. I've somewhat resigned myself to the fact that I'm going to have to just spend the time and money to create a bunch of different media types. It just wouldn't sit right knowing that there's a chance I could have done a better job but did not spend the time to do it.
Cheers, Joe
I don't use, nor am I familiar with ColorBurst, but I vote for the Bill Atkinson approach if you build your own custom paper/printer profiles. Using ColorThink, one can then do an objective evaluation of the different ink settings in the x300 MCT.
My take on ink settings is "Medium High" looks to be a very good choice when using third party fine art papers. After implementing the MCT, choose fine art mat or fine art glossy/semi-glossy, click the assist button, input the paper weight and go with Canon's media choice, use the Automatic settings to start with, and configure with different ink levels (I'm doing two configurations, Standard and Medium High), then print the profile targets. Next, create the profiles with the necessary software and take the two profiles into ColorThink for an objective evaluation. Looking at the two target profile prints under a viewing lamp serves as a good subjective evaluation.
I have found the recommended Special 5 setting for H. fine art glossy papers to be inferior to the more customized approach. Sure it takes time, paper, and ink, but if you want the best (as it sounds you do), go for it. The MCT is a remarkable improvement with the x300 printers.
-
I don't use, nor am I familiar with ColorBurst, but I vote for the Bill Atkinson approach if you build your own custom paper/printer profiles.
You vote to do it that way even though you've never tried it the other way which is purported to be faster and even more scientific? Why not give it a shot and then vote?
-
You vote to do it that way even though you've never tried it the other way which is purported to be faster and even more scientific? Why not give it a shot and then vote?
I can only "vote" for something I have familiarity. I'm not opposed to trying ColorBurst, I might very well look into it further when time permits. However, I am trying to get by with what I already have. The more software that comes available, it is clearly getting to the point one has to make a choice of what not to try and be happy with what one already has. Simply keeping up with new versions of the same software is a time consuming chore in itself.
-
I'm not opposed to trying ColorBurst, I might very well look into it further when time permits. However, I am trying to get by with what I already have. The more software that comes available, it is clearly getting to the point one has to make a choice of what not to try and be happy with what one already has. Simply keeping up with new versions of the same software is a time consuming chore in itself.
If time is an issue and you're wanting to determine the optimal media setting with the MCT tool then the above mentioned procedure with the demo version of ColorBurst will save you a bunch of time versus making profiles and analyzing them in ColorThink. There's no need to buy ColorBurst or actually print with it - it can be used for a scientific analysis of the different options the MCT tool provides. I sure understand your frustration with all this time consuming learning curve stuff!
-
If time is an issue and you're wanting to determine the optimal media setting with the MCT tool then the above mentioned procedure with the demo version of ColorBurst will save you a bunch of time versus making profiles and analyzing them in ColorThink. There's no need to buy ColorBurst or actually print with it - it can be used for a scientific analysis of the different options the MCT tool provides. I sure understand your frustration with all this time consuming learning curve stuff!
Onsight, I checked out ColorBurst Pro and see it is only compatible with the Windows platform. I have a Mac, and I see ColorBurst X-Proof is an option, will it provide the tools I need to determine the optimal setting with the MCT?
-
Onsight, I checked out ColorBurst Pro and see it is only compatible with the Windows platform. I have a Mac, and I see ColorBurst X-Proof is an option, will it provide the tools I need to determine the optimal setting with the MCT?
Yes, it's all there. What I'm not completely certain about is if the demo version let's you do it all without a dongle. I think so...
-
Alrighty then... DLing the ColorBurst demo now.
To Peninsula... yeah, I'm a little suspect of Hahnemuhle's recommended media settings. I was hoping that perhaps they had made their own media types, like Crane Museo has done but that appears to not be the case. I just did a comparison of the recommended Special 9 setting for HFA Photo Rag Ultra Smooth vs. the media type I created myself (which is either using low or medium low in). My own little test target has a strip with a black background that has 9 patches on it in increments of 2 going from 0,0,0 to 16,16,16 and then something similar with white patches going back from 255, 255, 255. I also have a b+w gradient and a granger chart. Special 9 doesn't resolve the shadows as well as my media type with the low ink setting. It also exhibits a severe hotspot of ink in the... I think purple, magenta (don't want to turn the lights on right now to verify... the Spectroscan is huffing along in the corner).
Cheers, Joe
-
Alright... Spectroscan is still huffing and puffing but when it's done... basically I want to create a few different media types. I figure maybe divide an conquer-ish approach. I'll do a low, medium and high media type, and print the 20 patch linearization chart with each (Hmmm... looks like ColorBurst is using the Monaco Profiler engine????) .From there I fire up SpectralVision, scan in the targets and then compare the graphs??? (this is from all of 1 minute and 30 seconds of skimming through the manual... go easy on me if I'm way off base).
Cheers, Joe
-
Yes, it's all there. What I'm not completely certain about is if the demo version let's you do it all without a dongle. I think so...
Still waiting for the Spectroscan to finish up. Anyhow... I think this verifies what you're saying:
From the SpetralVision manual:
A ColorBurst dongle is required to build an ICC Profile. SpectralVision Pro will create a lin- earization file without a dongle, but the Profile Build window is disabled when a ColorBurst dongle is not plugged in to a USB port. This means that SpectralVision Pro can not be used with the ColorBurst demo to create an ICC profile—a full license of ColorBurst with the dongle is required.
-
Oy... So SpectralVision has CMYK targets. In order to test this stuff with I bought a pack of 8.5x11 sheets of matte paper so I didn't have to waste a ton of empty space on my rolls. Well, the Photoshop pluggin which does print to 8.5x11 cut sheets just fine, will only accept RGB input. The 8 bit driver via Photoshop won't let me select "cut sheet" as the source, complaining that I need to feed the printer a valid paper size in order to use a cut sheet. Sigh. This ain't gonna happen tonight I guess.
ETA - Never mind... in the 8 bit driver (which is kind of painful to use after using the PS plugin) you can't just select "8.5x11" for page size... there's a tear-off menu that gives you sub item selections and one of them is "8.5x11 cut sheet". So why is it not enough to select 8.5x11 and specify cut sheet in the check box (which you have to do anyway)??? Sigh. Okay... let's see what happens here.
Cheers, Joe
-
A ColorBurst dongle is required to build an ICC Profile
Right, but we're not interested in CB making a profile, just helping us determine which media setting will give optimal results. Here's how it works: Print the CB linearization image with the MCT Tool, read the Linearization target in SpecralVision, load it in CB and have it graph the results with the Chroma graphing option. You'll want to look for a chroma (saturation) plateau. As density increases so does chroma - up to a certain point. After hitting a sweet spot, saturation actually decreases with increased density. Our eyes can't see that - we perceive increased density as increased saturation and we shouldn't trust them in this way! Looking for and hitting those chroma sweet spots is the key to maximizing DMax and color gamut! This is what advanced RIP installation experts have been doing for years. Perhaps someone will write a more elegant tool for scientifically determining optimal media settings with regular printer drivers....
-
Alrighty then... DLing the ColorBurst demo now.
To Peninsula... yeah, I'm a little suspect of Hahnemuhle's recommended media settings. I was hoping that perhaps they had made their own media types, like Crane Museo has done but that appears to not be the case. I just did a comparison of the recommended Special 9 setting for HFA Photo Rag Ultra Smooth vs. the media type I created myself (which is either using low or medium low in). My own little test target has a strip with a black background that has 9 patches on it in increments of 2 going from 0,0,0 to 16,16,16 and then something similar with white patches going back from 255, 255, 255. I also have a b+w gradient and a granger chart. Special 9 doesn't resolve the shadows as well as my media type with the low ink setting. It also exhibits a severe hotspot of ink in the... I think purple, magenta (don't want to turn the lights on right now to verify... the Spectroscan is huffing along in the corner).
Cheers, Joe
Thanks for the update. I plan to profile the same Ultra Sm next week. It sounds like you are onto a good ink setting. I started a post on the subject when I could not, for some odd reason, relocate this post... go figure.
Is there any way I can get a tiff of your test target? It sounds WAY better than the one that comes with the MCT.
Regards, Greg
-
Right, but we're not interested in CB making a profile, just helping us determine which media setting will give optimal results. Here's how it works: Print the CB linearization image with the MCT Tool, read the Linearization target in SpecralVision, load it in CB and have it graph the results with the Chroma graphing option. You'll want to look for a chroma (saturation) plateau. As density increases so does chroma - up to a certain point. After hitting a sweet spot, saturation actually decreases with increased density. Our eyes can't see that - we perceive increased density as increased saturation and we shouldn't trust them in this way! Looking for and hitting those chroma sweet spots is the key to maximizing DMax and color gamut! This is what advanced RIP installation experts have been doing for years. Perhaps someone will write a more elegant tool for scientifically determining optimal media settings with regular printer drivers....
Thanks for those details, I'm going to copy and paste as a convenient reference in the case I go there. Sounds pretty simple, too.
-
My take on H. Photo Rag Baryta 315:
Hahnemuhle recommends Special 5 for all of their glossy/semi-glossy papers. I figured we can do better, and I believe I have. I'll share my method (crude as it may be):
After evaluating ink usage choices with the under-adequate test-print target that comes with the MCT, I perceived a drop in saturation at the High setting relative to the Medium-high setting, and better saturation for Medium-high relative to Standard (which should be called Medium IMO). This was done by looking at the color patch aspect of the test print with an 8x magnifying loop and under a D50 lamp. It was subtle, these differences, but I could reproduce my findings without any question. Otherwise, I find the MCT Test print worthless when attempting to perceive a difference among the three highest settings. I then configured a profile, entering "Photo/Art/Proofing Paper (Glossy), clicked the "Assist" button for choosing the best Media Type name, enter the paper weight at 315, and went with the recommended HW Gloss Photo for the Standard Paper choice. I left both head height and Vacuum Strength at auto, and Max Ink Usage at Medium-high.
Next, I created paper profiles using both the Special 5 configuration and my custom configuration by printing a two-page 1860 patch profile target. I took these 1860 test prints and further evaluated them under the D50 lamp, and I could see darker color, perhaps with a tad more pop, viewing the Special 5 target, it was subtle. However, the Custom target showed, only in a few hues, clearly better tonal separation between patches. Using ProfileMaker, I made the profiles and I took both into ColorThink and compared them. I'd view one in the Wireframe mode and the other Flat, and switch the modes back and forth. It was subtle, but the custom configuration had a slight edge with a larger gamut.
I know this is not scientifically precise as I understand one can accomplish using other methods like ColorBurst software, but I have no question in my eye the Custom configuration using Medium-high for maximum ink volume is an improvement over the canned Special 5 setting when used on this paper. I'm going to build a profile using H. Ultra-Smooth 305 next.
-
Here's how it works: Print the CB linearization image with the MCT Tool, read the Linearization target in SpecralVision, load it in CB and have it graph the results with the Chroma graphing option
Thanks Scott,
I know we don't want to build a profile BUT... are these features part of the module to build a profile? I read in the target and then saved it via SV but I can't find any way to load it into CB. When the dongle is in place, SV will automatically transfer the data to CB if I understood the manual correctly.The other method is to open it from within CB. In CB itself if you click on ink and color, Ink Curves, Linearization, and Ink Limit are greyed out. If I'm not mistaken, in order to open that Linearization file you need to click on the Linearization tab in the Ink and Colors module and then click the open button.
There's a high probability that I'm doing something wrong but in the mean time I created my own test file. They had some color blocks (0,0,255; 0,255,0; 0,255,255; 255,0,0; 255,0,255; 255,255,0; 255,255,255; 128,128,128). Then I had two strips, one with a black background and one with a white. On each there were 9 blocks inside each strip. In the black strip the first block would be 0,0,0, the second 2,2,2, the third, 4,4,4, etc. I did the same thing with the white only in reverse. Finally I also had a Granger Chart on there.
I'd created 3 media types to start out with using Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin, low, medium low, and medium. Looking at the prints with a 4700ºk Solux bulb, the low and medium low ink limits I can see the blocks down to 2,2,2. Overall the distinction on the medium low is better than on medium. When you get to medium you can no longer easily see the 2,2,2 block. If you tilt the print there's some gloss differential there and you can see the blocks but that doesn't really help for normal viewing of the print.
Unfortunately Monaco Profiler doesn't have anything I can use to measure dMax but I do have an Eye One Extreme as well so I can at least measure dE between patches using Eye One Share. Measuring the distance between the low black patch and the medium patch I get a difference of 1.5 - 1.8 dE. Between the medium low and medium I get 0.1 dE which is within the noise floor of the i1 Pro. Another thing I noted is that if I measured multiple spots on the low setting the dE would vary by up to 0.5 - 0.6 dE. On the medium patch it was about 0.3 dE. the Medium Low was about 0.1 dE between multple spots, again within the noise floor of the i1 Pro.
Don't know that this proves anything or not but visually the medium low did appear to be the best.
Another observation, on the granger chart with the medium print I noticed what appeared to be heavy pooling in areas of purple and blue.
I haven't measured the other patches yet so I'm not sure how they're responding.
Cheers, Joe
-
I know we don't want to build a profile BUT... are these features part of the module to build a profile?
You'll use SV to measure and save the Lin file. Then load the Lin file in CB (Ink&Color>Linearization>LinearizationFile>Open), select the Chroma linearization method and then press the "Advanced Lin Control" to see the results graphed out.
In CB itself if you click on ink and color, Ink Curves, Linearization, and Ink Limit are greyed out. If I'm not mistaken, in order to open that Linearization file you need to click on the Linearization tab in the Ink and Colors module and then click the open button.
Hmmmm, yes, that could be because 1) you've got an Epson x900 printer selected or 2) a limitation of the latest demo version. Can you add a 9880 printer? Use a fake IP address just to get it to load.
There's a high probability that I'm doing something wrong but in the mean time I created my own test file. They had some color blocks (0,0,255; 0,255,0; 0,255,255; 255,0,0; 255,0,255; 255,255,0; 255,255,255; 128,128,128). Then I had two strips, one with a black background and one with a white. On each there were 9 blocks inside each strip. In the black strip the first block would be 0,0,0, the second 2,2,2, the third, 4,4,4, etc. I did the same thing with the white only in reverse. Finally I also had a Granger Chart on there.
Sounds like a good visual analysis file. If you haven't already, see my "Media Selection Image" at http://www.on-sight.com/downloads/ (http://www.on-sight.com/downloads/)
Another observation, on the granger chart with the medium print I noticed what appeared to be heavy pooling in areas of purple and blue.
Good eye - I've noticed that too on the x300 printers. This kind of symptom is where, were we printing through a RIP, we would want to set the total ink limit and linearization for each individual ink - particularly watching the blue, cyan and magentas in this case. Seems like Canon's linearization (that's baked into the driver) is a bit heavy on this part of the gamut.
In this situation we've got too choices. 1) Lower the overall total ink limit until we prevent pooling in these darkest purples or 2) Ignore this area, let it pool a little and set the total ink limit for the rest of the colors. The granger in your test file represents the absolute wide rage of colors the printer is capable of, but not necessarily what you'll ever use. Canon's x300 inks "dive" deeply into the purples - so deep that it's kind of ludicrous to think we'd ever use that part of the gamut when printing photography. Although not ideal, I vote for the second option since, after all, it's extremely rare that we would actually have a photograph that had such deep purples to begin with. One could deal with the problem later should the need present itself. I've been watching those deep purples myself and have been looking for images that can exploit that area. I've found some deep purple flower images that do quiet well but don't print with the pooling I've seen prior to profiling.
Good thoughts Joe. It's nice to see comments on this level.
-
You'll use SV to measure and save the Lin file. Then load the Lin file in CB (Ink&Color>Linearization>LinearizationFile>Open), select the Chroma linearization method and then press the "Advanced Lin Control" to see the results graphed out.
Hmmmm, yes, that could be because 1) you've got an Epson x900 printer selected or
Bingo!!! Okay, added the 9880 and was able to get to the linearization tab, opened the target that I'd previously scanned in using SV, hit "reset baseline", was then able to select chroma for lin method and now I can see the graphs. AWESOME!!! Okay... back to the salt mines. First I have to disassembled my Spectroscan table and locate whatever component got toasted (crossing fingers and hoping for a fan... it still works just fine so... errr... it can't be something critical but anyone who has worked in an R&D department KNOWS that smell by heart... and also knows that it's never a good thing LOL).
Be back sometime soon with some quantifiable data!
Cheers, Joe
-
Okay, here we go.
HFA William Turner. Base paper suggested by the MCT was HW Textured. I created 5 media types, Low, Medium Low, Medium, Medium High, and High (referring to the amount of ink). I'd like to say I know what I'm looking at but errr... ummm... Well.. okay I know what I'm looking at but I'm not sure what it means. I can definitely say that something "BIG" happens between medium low and medium as the yellow and magenta channels look a bit more linear.
The targets were scanned in with a Spectroscan/Spectrolino table, no UV filter, in a completely dark room (aside from the glow of the 8300's LCD).
Here's some screen shots:
-
More data... although this set is probably flawed as I forgot to put the UV filter on (Hahnemuhle indicates that Photo Rag Ultra Smooth has "moderate" OBAs).
-
Alright... Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth with the UV filter:
-
Which Linearization method is this? Also have you played with any non-matte papers yet? For the process of getting to know this procedure, non-matte papers would be helpful.
-
Which Linearization method is this? Also have you played with any non-matte papers yet? For the process of getting to know this procedure, non-matte papers would be helpful.
Hey Scott,
The linearization method was set to chroma. I just printed out a set of targets on Crane Museo Silver Rag but I didn't have time to scan the targets in before I left tonight. I'll do that tomorrow.
Cheers, Joe
-
Here's Crane Museo Silver Rag. This set also includes the Factory provided custom media type downloaded from Crane Museo's website. Something kinda interesting going on with the Cyan channel there.
-
One more to add... Proofline Metallic. Scanned the target without the UV filter. Kinda hard to say what the OBA content is. Blacklight says some. 'Tis a little brighter than Crane Museo Silver Rag (which claims to have no OBAs but then again, HFA German Etching claims to have no OBAs either and I do not thing that's true at all) but not as bad as Epson Exhibition Fiber or HFA Photo Rag Ultra Smooth.
-
FWIW... I posed a question to someone at Canon around the time when I started this thread and they just got some new information. Canon is indeed working on improving the MCT. There weren't many details but the implication was that the next version would have a more methodical and scientific method of determining the optimal ink parameters. He had no information on the timeline. Either way though, this is good news as it looks like Canon is really taking things a step further in terms of making it easier to use 3rd party papers.
Cheers, Joe
-
These graphs don't look right, and that's probably my fault by not suggesting you zero out the settings. Under the "Ink Curves" tab, set all the values to 100%. Under the Linearization tab, hit the "Reset Baseline" button, reload your Lin file and then re graph by going to "Advanced Lin Control". Then you'll see the desired plateaus.
-
These graphs don't look right, and that's probably my fault by not suggesting you zero out the settings. Under the "Ink Curves" tab, set all the values to 100%. Under the Linearization tab, hit the "Reset Baseline" button, reload your Lin file and then re graph by going to "Advanced Lin Control". Then you'll see the desired plateaus.
Ahhh... Perhaps my fault as well for maybe not reading through the manual a bit more. Still not sure I see anything as some things are still going up as others are going down but it looks like maybe the transition for medium to medium high? Cyan and Magenta start going down but black and yellow are still headed up. When you go from medium high to high though, everything is still heading up except the black which finally goes down a bit.
Here's what it looks like now for the Crane Museo Silver Rag:
-
I'm preparing to build another third-party paper configuration using the MCT. Scott had me get in touch with John Hollenberg on the Canon iPF printer wiki to discuss implementing a wiki page for third-party papers and the x300 series. John was kind enough to reply prior to leaving town for a couple of weeks, and he intends to start a new wiki page after his return, but for now, this appears to be the best place to get feedback on the subject.
The next paper I'm going to configure is the Ilford Smooth Pearl (an excellent RC paper). I contacted Ilford regarding the x300 MCT settings, and I got an answer that was at the least, more detailed than selecting something as generic as "Special 5". I'll paste their recommendation: We suggest to use the media type "Premium Semi-Glossy Paper 280", Print Quality "High" or "Highest" with the choice of ticking "High Precision Photographs". This is valid for either printing by the use of our ICC profile or when printing without ICC profile.
When I use the assist button in the MCT and enter the paper weight (290), Canon recommends using Premium Gloss 280. Hmmm, which one to use?
First, I'm going to go with Ilford's recommendation and use Semi-Gloss media-type setting, I'll then print three test charts from the three highest ink-volume settings for the sole purpose of evaluating color saturation and brightness (it is the only aspect of Canon's MCT test charts for ink volume I find useful), then I'll make my choice for ink-volume setting (Standard, Medium-high, or High). From there, I'll go ahead and finish the configuration, and print the 1860-patch profile target.
Second, I'm going to do the same protocol using the Premium Glossy media-type setting.
With both protocols, I'll build ICC profiles and compare them in color think for gamut size and see if I can appreciate a difference. In addition to implementing ColorThink for gamut evaluation, I'll visually compare the 1860-patch profile targets, which I find extremely useful for evaluating tonal definition, which is very subtle on the 1860-patch targets.
Any thoughts or feedback is welcome!
Greg
-
Greg,
Interesting work with the Colorburst demo. I'm going to have to give this a try for my next profile (got a role of Canson-Infinity Rag Photographique on its way, which I haven't used before).
Maybe Scott can comment, but I wouldn't put too much faith into the "Assist" button in the MCT for choosing the base media type; it seems to go primarily by paper weight within the broad paper categories. But we know from experience with the x000 and x100 printers that some media types do better than others with 3rd-party papers, and it's not just a matter of paper weight. My suggestion would be to look at the "recommended" media types on the ipf-wiki that have been used successfully with 3rd-party papers in the past with x100 printers, as those will likely serve as good starting points for a custom media type and profile.
On the topic of sharing this info on the wiki I think it's a great idea. It might even be cool to share MCT files, atlhough unfortunately they're not compatible between 6300 and 8300.
-
Greg,
Interesting work with the Colorburst demo. I'm going to have to give this a try for my next profile (got a role of Canson-Infinity Rag Photographique on its way, which I haven't used before).
Maybe Scott can comment, but I wouldn't put too much faith into the "Assist" button in the MCT for choosing the base media type; it seems to go primarily by paper weight within the broad paper categories. But we know from experience with the x000 and x100 printers that some media types do better than others with 3rd-party papers, and it's not just a matter of paper weight. My suggestion would be to look at the "recommended" media types on the ipf-wiki that have been used successfully with 3rd-party papers in the past with x100 printers, as those will likely serve as good starting points for a custom media type and profile.
On the topic of sharing this info on the wiki I think it's a great idea. It might even be cool to share MCT files, atlhough unfortunately they're not compatible between 6300 and 8300.
Thanks, Jeff
Unfortunately, the ipf-wiki for x100 printers does not list Ilf. Smooth Pearl. You have likely noticed, the media-type choices with the x300 series have changed considerably from the x100s, a much abbreviated list. So even if I could find a choice for the x100 series, that choice is likely not provided in the x300 MCT. On the subject of not putting too much faith in the Assist button, it would figure to be of dubious help... egads, this thing about digital technology, you get it too fast, and no one else has caught up to speed enough to adequately implement it, and you wait too long, you get outdated! Okay, so I'll stick with Ilford's recommendation to use the Semi-Gloss setting, then print a couple of different profile targets using different ink volume settings instead. Like I've said before, I'll do the best with what I got.
The work with ColorBurst is interesting, I'm hoping others will implement its use (I'm kind of over my head as it is) and verify or invalidate my choices using the MCT on certain third-party papers. Until then, I'll keep publishing my findings under this topic and look forward to the feedback I can get. I need all the guidance others can provide.
Cheers,
Greg
-
Having printed a profile target for the Ilford Ultra Smooth using the Med-high ink-volume setting and Ilford's recommended Media choice of Semi-Glossy Paper 280, I'm going to leave it at that for the time being. I'm going to trust my eye, but keep an eye on Canon's iPF wiki site for additional information pertaining to third-party papers and the MCT x300 series, as well as the current effort using ColorBurst. Then I might feel inclined to use more ink and paper to re-evaluate pending additional feedback.
Moving on... I configured settings for H. Photo Rag Ultra Smooth (Matte). Based on others using similar paper (here and at the iPF wiki), I settled on using Premium Matte for the Media choice. When examining all five ink-volume settings, it was more difficult to appreciate changes in saturation and luminosity with my naked eye or when using a 7x lighted loupe, while it was more clearly obvious when configuring glossy and semi-glossy papers, although the High setting did appear too dark. However, I could better appreciate the black and white ink-dot profiles and found the High and Medium-high settings appeared to bleed a bit. Given Jeff's finding the ideal setting for a similar paper was Medium-low or Low, and the fact I could hardly see a difference between Low, Medium-low, and Medium, I went with Medium (what can I say, I think the color patches look a tad better with Medium?) I'm ready to print the 1860 patch profiling targets for both of these papers, and I'll double check for any visible problems before making a profile after they dry overnight. I'll take another look at the ink-volume test targets as well.
Time to fire up the grill.
-
When you go from medium high to high though, everything is still heading up...
I'm not sure what media setting you are using for Museo Rag, but it looks like you could potentially add more ink (by selecting a different media setting) to achieve greater saturation. Just for reference, here's a screen grab that shows when you've got too much ink and the maximum saturation has been exceeded.
-
I'm not sure what media setting you are using for Museo Rag, but it looks like you could potentially add more ink (by selecting a different media setting) to achieve greater saturation. Just for reference, here's a screen grab that shows when you've got too much ink and the maximum saturation has been exceeded.
Interesting. When using the MCT I've been entering both the weight and the thickness and using whatever the heavier thickness is. I've done about four of these now and the results are all pretty consistent and don't even approach the curves you're showing (and yeah... that's pretty obvious LOL). I do hope Canon changes their terminology in the next revision of the MCT to something more concrete as low, medium low, medium, medium high, and high aren't... well... meaningful. "Medium High", relative to what, and is medium high in Special 9 the same as medium high in some other media type?
Cheers, Joe
-
Plodding along with my subjective efforts configuring third party papers. I'm excited and pleased with all four profiles built with the previously posted MCT settings. I printed Uwe's test target shared in Fine Art Printing for Photographers. Color and neutral transitions are text book. The memory colors remarkably consistent across all three glossy papers. I love the shadow detail in the lava flow! Skin tones outstanding. It looked like the ColorChecker was getting clipped in soft proof, but side by side comparisons looked great (using a mini checker). All subjective stuff, but no grossly visible issues. I'll roll with my settings for the time being.
First landscape print using the iPF8300, a scene out of Coyote Gulch near Escalante, on H. PhotoR UltrSm, shows notable improvement in the reds/magentas/yellows and overall improved contrast compared to iPF6100. I'm ready to dig in, let the fun begin...
Any progress elsewhere?
-
Moving on... I configured settings for H. Photo Rag Ultra Smooth (Matte). Based on others using similar paper (here and at the iPF wiki), I settled on using Premium Matte for the Media choice. When examining all five ink-volume settings, it was more difficult to appreciate changes in saturation and luminosity with my naked eye or when using a 7x lighted loupe, while it was more clearly obvious when configuring glossy and semi-glossy papers, although the High setting did appear too dark. However, I could better appreciate the black and white ink-dot profiles and found the High and Medium-high settings appeared to bleed a bit. Given Jeff's finding the ideal setting for a similar paper was Medium-low or Low, and the fact I could hardly see a difference between Low, Medium-low, and Medium, I went with Medium (what can I say, I think the color patches look a tad better with Medium?) I'm ready to print the 1860 patch profiling targets for both of these papers, and I'll double check for any visible problems before making a profile after they dry overnight. I'll take another look at the ink-volume test targets as well.
I actually did two profiles/media-types for Hahn Photo Rag 308. The first one I used FA WaterColor as the base media type, with an ink setting of Med-Low. I did a second profile with a base media-type of Premium Matte and the best ink setting turned out to be Standard. The Prem-Matte-based profile has a littel better gamut in the shadows and darker midtones, which is where matte papers tend to struggle so that is the profile I've been using. So our findings are in pretty close agreement there.
-
I actually did two profiles/media-types for Hahn Photo Rag 308. The first one I used FA WaterColor as the base media type, with an ink setting of Med-Low. I did a second profile with a base media-type of Premium Matte and the best ink setting turned out to be Standard. The Prem-Matte-based profile has a littel better gamut in the shadows and darker midtones, which is where matte papers tend to struggle so that is the profile I've been using. So our findings are in pretty close agreement there.
Thanks, Jeff
Yes, I settled on the Standard ink volume as well, although it was not as easy or clear a choice as when testing with the glossy papers. I went with the Premium Matte setting based on your advice as well as the iPF wiki with similar papers on the Canon iPFx100 series. Good to know we have similar conclusions, it builds my confidence. It will be interesting to see what others come up with.
-
Just read through this series of post, wow! Great work guys, much appreciated.
Just took delivery of the 8300 a little over a week ago (replacing an aging Epson 9600) and while it is potentially a fabulous printer the complexity of this thing is off the charts compared to my old printer. Canon documentation is one notch above useless so I have been winging it the best I can until coming across this thread. Lots of great info here.
Couple of questions though:
Having downloaded the demo to CB rip and Spectral Vision in the past one only has two weeks to use the demo and then its DOA, in other words while its a great tool for building medial files for the MCT software you really have to get as much done as possible in the two week time frame, correct? Or can the SV part of the software continue to work without a license?
Also I find it curious no has used the Colorsync tool to look at the 3D gamut maps and make comparisons with one against the other, to see which media/paper settings Canon used to build profiles. Basically before realizing anything about this MCT software, (which potentially could be a huge attribute if Canon can improve a few things), studying the existing colorsync gamut maps provided the only usable information I could find to start profile building. Does this make sense? Personally I have always liked the colorsync utility for looking at gamut maps vs Colorthink's method.
So you folks have gone through a lot of trouble, used a ton of ink and paper to tweak and optimize printer settings. I have to ask, just how much of an improvement is there really compared to simply using the widest gamut media setting to build a profile for X brand comparable media? As an example using Epson's Premium Luster and building a profile with the PremSemi-gloss 280 setting?
Its fairly easy to get a great looking print off this thing winging it with the media settings as is. And I don't mind putting in the time if noticeable improvements are to be had. I agree the color chart Canon uses is somewhat worthless, trying one effort this afternoon with Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte paper, one has to strain to see any significant difference in the 6 ink limits. Interestingly enough all of them exhibited the problematic uber saturated purple-ish magenta situation previously described on some other media.
Thanks
Rob
-
So you folks have gone through a lot of trouble, used a ton of ink and paper to tweak and optimize printer settings. I have to ask, just how much of an improvement is there really compared to simply using the widest gamut media setting to build a profile for X brand comparable media?
In the bigger picture, not much. We're totally geeking on a few percentage points here. The MCT tool is for uber geeks - not 99% of iPF users!
As an example using Epson's Premium Luster and building a profile with the PremSemi-gloss 280 setting?
That'll work great. Most people should simply use a similiar sounding media type like you would do with an Epson or HP printer, or check the wiki for a recomended media setting.
Its fairly easy to get a great looking print off this thing winging it with the media settings as is.
Yep, it is. Don't feel like you have to even install the MCT tool - it's for super geeks, tinkerers, and people looking for trouble. :)
-
In the bigger picture, not much. We're totally geeking on a few percentage points here. The MCT tool is for uber geeks - not 99% of iPF users!
That'll work great. Most people should simply use a similiar sounding media type like you would do with an Epson or HP printer, or check the wiki for a recomended media setting.
Yep, it is. Don't feel like you have to even install the MCT tool - it's for super geeks, tinkerers, and people looking for trouble. :)
Thanks - that needed saying!
When I was testing the 6300 I printed a set of test images at high quality and the same at 'super high all knobs at 11' setting. There is a difference, I can see it with my pocket microscope and by eye, only with very good lighting - a blind test with someone I regard as a real expert, in ordinary lighting, led to him first picking the 'lesser' version and then being not so sure...
The MCT is great idea, but like a lot of this advanced stuff should come with health warnings that most people (if they are honest ;) ) probably won't see any differences.
Don't get me wrong I love tinkering, and the reviews I write give me a great chance to experiment with other peoples' printers/paper/ink. However, there is always the chance that all this concentration on minutiae puts off people wanting to move up to larger printers.
Of course, this is a print section of the forum, so I'd expect to find the print anoraks here (UK version of 'Geek' ;) ) but I'm well aware that its a place where other people come for help and information.
I've long followed that engineering adage that 'perfection is the enemy of excellence' and I know that people who actually buy prints don't get out a hand lens to look at them ;-)
-
Thanks - that needed saying!
When I was testing the 6300 I printed a set of test images at high quality and the same at 'super high all knobs at 11' setting. There is a difference, I can see it with my pocket microscope and by eye, only with very good lighting - a blind test with someone I regard as a real expert, in ordinary lighting, led to him first picking the 'lesser' version and then being not so sure...
The MCT is great idea, but like a lot of this advanced stuff should come with health warnings that most people (if they are honest ;) ) probably won't see any differences.
Don't get me wrong I love tinkering, and the reviews I write give me a great chance to experiment with other peoples' printers/paper/ink. However, there is always the chance that all this concentration on minutiae puts off people wanting to move up to larger printers.
Of course, this is a print section of the forum, so I'd expect to find the print anoraks here (UK version of 'Geek' ;) ) but I'm well aware that its a place where other people come for help and information.
I've long followed that engineering adage that 'perfection is the enemy of excellence' and I know that people who actually buy prints don't get out a hand lens to look at them ;-)
I'd have to agree in general the MCT is not going to sell more prints, nor will the naked eye see a difference, with one exception: Hahnemuhle paper. To shoehorn all H. gloss papers under Special 5 and all matte under Special 9 is ludicrous. With H. Photo Rag Baryta, the differences were easy to see when tweaking with the MCT and then comparing Special 5 to what I came up with using Heavy Wht. Gloss Photo and the Medium-high ink setting. For such high quality paper, I'm baffled with Hahnemuhle's generic approach. If not for the MCT, we'd be stuck until if/when H. comes out with more paper-specific recommendations.
Also, if one uses the MCT for nothing else, use the show/hide feature to simplify workflow on the printer's display screen. Editing the paper order on the printer display is a nice feature, too. Even if one is using canon papers, use the MCT for setting printer preferences. For example, I like to set all roll-paper preferences to "Eject Cut", and with the MCT, I can set this preference for each paper configuration once and be good time after time instead of having the printer reset to its default "Auto Cut" preference. On the iPF6100, one could choose the cut-setting preference in the plugin under "Advance" settings, but this is not an option on the 8300.
In other words, the MCT has many features that are simple and practical, as well as geeky and of marginal benefit.
-
When I was testing the 6300 I printed a set of test images at high quality and the same at 'super high all knobs at 11' setting. There is a difference, I can see it with my pocket microscope and by eye, only with very good lighting - a blind test with someone I regard as a real expert, in ordinary lighting, led to him first picking the 'lesser' version and then being not so sure...
Exactly, this has been my experience as well. One really has to strain to see the difference with these maxed out settings and then you find yourself second guessing and doubting your own findings. That said what I do find interesting and a bit frustrating is Canon's obtuse way of defining print resolution. While they claim this is a 2400x1200 dpi printer, and who am I to doubt it, there seems to be nothing but a 600 dpi setting, or was that 600 ppi. Canon has really gone out of their way to keep end users in the dark on understanding what this printer is all about.
-
In other words, the MCT has many features that are simple and practical, as well as geeky and of marginal benefit.
Good points Greg, and would agree wholeheartedly.
Just for grins and giggles I am going to at least follow through with working the MCT to the max for print optimization on at least one or two paper choices just to see for myself what differences do exist if for no other reason than my old 9600 printer produced some slightly better autumn colors than did the Canon 8300 from images shot at Zion NP this past year. The yellows were just a tad "closed in" compared to the 9600 print, and you could clearly see this attribute comparing the two different printer profiles in colorsync. These initial results surprised me greatly and on the surface made no sense (until reading through this thread) given the extended color gamut of the new printer.
Thanks
-
That said what I do find interesting and a bit frustrating is Canon's obtuse way of defining print resolution. While they claim this is a 2400x1200 dpi printer, and who am I to doubt it, there seems to be nothing but a 600 dpi setting, or was that 600 ppi. Canon has really gone out of their way to keep end users in the dark on understanding what this printer is all about.
I agree it's confusing and that's partly because the software is designed in Japanese and the English translation isn't as intuitive as Canon USA and the rest of us would like it to be. The older drivers used to say (600x1200, 1200x1200, 1200x2400, etc) but now they are reduced to "standard", "high" and "highest". The (600dpi) portion after these words actually refers to the input image resolution (which should be in ppi). So it's accepting a true 600ppi image that's then rendered at the print resolution (which is 2400dpi is you use "highest"). I've given feedback to Canon on this again and again but Japon's willingness to change things is slow...
John Hollenberg made the iPF wiki so we could have a place where iPF owner can discuss stuff like this. Details like yours have been discussed and explained there for years. Check it out if you haven't already. Even Canon USA staff do too. :-] http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/
-
...my old 9600 printer produced some slightly better autumn colors than did the Canon 8300 from images shot at Zion NP this past year. The yellows were just a tad "closed in" compared to the 9600 print, and you could clearly see this attribute comparing the two different printer profiles in colorsync. These initial results surprised me greatly and on the surface made no sense (until reading through this thread) given the extended color gamut of the new printer.
The x300 inkset yellows are unsurpassed - that's likely an issue with how the ICC profile handles "edge gamut" colors with the perceptual intent, and not an issue with the color gamut itself. A saturation maximizing approach to perceptual rendering will sacrifice image detail for color saturation near the edges of the color gamut. EyeOne Match and the LOGO Colorful option in ProfileMakerPro both take this approach. Monaco Profiler and the upcoming i1Profiler have, IMO, superior edge gamut handling that allows for excellent edge gamut color saturation without loosing image detail.
So I'd recommend getting some Monaco Profiler profiles made for your 8300 so you can get the most out of the "edge gamut" colors you're talking about. With them the results should blow you away, especially on a fiber base paper.
-
Scott/shewhorn,
I installed the Colorburst Demo, can I get some clarification on which linearization target you're supposed to print from the MCT? It seems all the Colorburst targets are CMYK, and MCT doesn't like that. Do I need to convert one of these to RGB? If so does the color space matter?
Thanks,
-
It seems all the Colorburst targets are CMYK, and MCT doesn't like that. Do I need to convert one of these to RGB? If so does the color space matter?
Hi Jeff,
I've bypassed the MCT completely and have been using the IPF plugin to print. Here's the process...
Using the MCT I create media types for each paper (I'm skipping the print feed calibration for now) so each paper will have a low, medium low, standard, medium high, and high media type. With the exception of the "high" media type (which is the last print I run) I've disabled the auto cut feature. This way I can reload the roll, turn off the 1st layer, turn on the 2nd layer, and go for another pass without wasting paper. It's a bit of a pain but it saves paper.
In Photoshop I have 5 duplicate linearization charts spread out across 22" (each chat is about 3"x11"). I just show/hide each layer on every pass.
Cheers, Joe
-
OK, now I understand what you did, it's just a little different than what I thought Scott to be suggesting.
Taking a look at the Colorburst for Windows demo has me even more confused about the rest of the process though, because the commands and tabs you two were discussing the other day don't seem to be present in the application I'm looking at, unless I'm missing something obvious.
I thought this might be more efficient than my "create a profile for each ink setting" approach, but at this point I'm not so sure. I want to get this profile created, so I think I'll stick with my previous approach for now and revisit the CB approach when I have more time.
-
Thanks Scott for this info, which I have to say is an issue and situation I have not heard of before. However in looking through the myriad amount of info on the canon wiki page I did come across a note by Eric Chan describing how one could reconfigure the settings in iOne Match to use different profiling methods apparently as you describe below. Unfortunately for the life of me I could not find the configuration folder/file anywhere within the iOne Match software in order to add the other two profiling methods he described, perhaps I just missed it.
So if I understand your statements below, you discuss this issue using the Perceptual Rendering Intent, but does this still occur if one is using Relative Rendering with BPC checked? Or are we talking about something entirely different here?
Thanks again,
Rob
The x300 inkset yellows are unsurpassed - that's likely an issue with how the ICC profile handles "edge gamut" colors with the perceptual intent, and not an issue with the color gamut itself. A saturation maximizing approach to perceptual rendering will sacrifice image detail for color saturation near the edges of the color gamut. EyeOne Match and the LOGO Colorful option in ProfileMakerPro both take this approach. Monaco Profiler and the upcoming i1Profiler have, IMO, superior edge gamut handling that allows for excellent edge gamut color saturation without loosing image detail.
So I'd recommend getting some Monaco Profiler profiles made for your 8300 so you can get the most out of the "edge gamut" colors you're talking about. With them the results should blow you away, especially on a fiber base paper.
-
So if I understand your statements below, you discuss this issue using the Perceptual Rendering Intent, but does this still occur if one is using Relative Rendering with BPC checked? Or are we talking about something entirely different here?
The options Scott discussed do not apply to rel-col, only perceptual intent.
As for changing the option with i1Match, on Windows the file you want to edit is "C:\Program Files\GretagMacbeth\i1\Eye-One Match 3\Config" (adjust installation folder as appropriate for your system).
If you're on Mac I can't help you there.
-
Unfortunately for the life of me I could not find the configuration folder/file anywhere within the iOne Match software in order to add the other two profiling methods he described, perhaps I just missed it.
Hi Rob,
This should help:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/i1GamutMapping/index.html
-
I installed the Colorburst Demo, can I get some clarification on which linearization target you're supposed to print from the MCT? It seems all the Colorburst targets are CMYK, and MCT doesn't like that. Do I need to convert one of these to RGB? If so does the color space matter?
Yes, You've got to convert to RGB and the color space you choose can have a huge effect on the process. I'd convert to sRGB. Yes, this step is less than ideal and is potentially the achilles heal of the process. To really determine the optimal ink limits for a RGB driver we should be printing out RGB+ wedges and measuring them with a tool similar to ColorBurst's. I've poked a few people about developing such a tool but no bites yet. Anyone reading this interested in making a RGB density and chroma graphing tool? (device support is such a pain, I know...)
I thought this might be more efficient than my "create a profile for each ink setting" approach, but at this point I'm not so sure. I want to get this profile created, so I think I'll stick with my previous approach for now and revisit the CB approach when I have more time.
Fair enough. If you're not used to ColorBurst it's pretty crazy. Too much learning curve for most. If you can use a small patch count target, like the 25 or 50, then making profiles is a pretty good way to go. Hello Munki and upcoming i1Profiler.
-
Thanks Scott for this info, which I have to say is an issue and situation I have not heard of before. However in looking through the myriad amount of info on the canon wiki page I did come across a note by Eric Chan describing how one could reconfigure the settings in iOne Match to use different profiling methods apparently as you describe below.
Just to clarify, If you mess with the perceptual rendering option in EyeOneMatch (or any other profiling app) it will only effect the results when prints are made with the Perceptual intent. The other intents in the profile will behave the same.
So if I understand your statements below, you discuss this issue using the Perceptual Rendering Intent, but does this still occur if one is using Relative Rendering with BPC checked? Or are we talking about something entirely different here?
The way those edge gamut colors are handled is entirely different with different intents. Am I correct in assuming that you are printing for fine art purposes? Are you currently seeing the described results with Perceptual? Are the profiles for the two printers made with the same software? Lots of variables to nail down...
-
Understood, that is what I figured just wanted to double check.
And yes I print not only for artist reproductions but also fine art photographs. With my 9600 printer I seldom used the perceptual rendering intent but used relative + bpc most of the time. iOne Match 3.6.3 has been used for both printers.
Rob
Just to clarify, If you mess with the perceptual rendering option in EyeOneMatch (or any other profiling app) it will only effect the results when prints are made with the Perceptual intent. The other intents in the profile will behave the same.
The way those edge gamut colors are handled is entirely different with different intents. Am I correct in assuming that you are printing for fine art purposes? Are you currently seeing the described results with Perceptual? Are the profiles for the two printers made with the same software? Lots of variables to nail down...
-
I've poked a few people about developing such a tool but no bites yet. Anyone reading this interested in making a RGB density and chroma graphing tool? (device support is such a pain, I know...)
IIRC, ArgyllCMS's printcal can do that already.
I have tool for creating grayscale profiles, which displays L* values graph from grayscale targets. I plan to extend it to show the results of linearization targets too. I am not sure when I will get some time to work on it though, as I am swamped with other work. Argyll's printcal might already be able to do that anyway.
Cheers,
Mulis
-
IIRC, ArgyllCMS's printcal can do that already.
Have you used it strictly for determining the optimal media setting? I'm not aware of an ability to graph out chroma values for this purpose. It's my (limited) understanding that printcal is for linearizing - not particularly for analyzing the chroma values for determining a optimal driver based media setting. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Have you used it strictly for determining the optimal media setting?
Not yet. I used it for linearization and remembered that it plots graphs during it, which I think is what you are looking for.
I'm not aware of an ability to graph out chroma values for this purpose. It's my (limited) understanding that printcal is for linearizing - not particularly for analyzing the chroma values for determining a optimal driver based media setting. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I looked at it and here are graphs I get during linearisation, they are Absolute DE, Relative DE and Calibration Curve plots. If I understand it correctly, the DE graphs are CIE Delta 94 to media white, so they can be used to determine whether color channels we are looking at are monotonic or not.
Cheers
Radek
-
I am preparing to profile Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. I asked tech support at Ilford for their recommendation on Standard Paper choice when using the x300 MCT and got the following reply:
We have not yet done these recommendations, they are planned. The choice must be something like
Media type: Instant Dry Photo Paper Satin
Print Quality: High
Colour: Defaults.
Not much to go on. Checking the recommendation for this paper at the Canon wiki page, I found "Special 5" was recommended for GFS on the iPF5100/6100 by Lou Dina. Considering Hahnemühle recommends Special 5 for their Photo Rag Baryta, I reckon the setting might have merit for GFS given the similarities between the two papers.
I'm figuring I'll have a go with the "Assist" recommendation based on paper weight (possibly HW Gloss Photo?) and/or use Special 5, and I'll run test targets at Medium-low, Standard, and Medium-high ink volumes based on previous work with glossy papers, but I'd appreciate anyone's feedback on alternative recommendations.
Thanks,
Greg
-
Hey Radek, these appear to be density curves, not the chroma curves we're seeking.
The maximum density usually isn't necessarily the optimal one. When we compare ink densities next to chroma values you'll find that they increase together up to a certain point at which the chroma will start to fall as the density continues to increase. This chroma plateau usually occurs pretty close to maximum density but the difference is important. The base of the chroma plateau represents the optimal ink limiting and is helps determine which media setting is optimal. So the moral of the story isL don't go for the maximum density without bleeding - go for the density that maximizes chroma *instead* of density! A better tool for that would be nice. We need to do the colorimetricly, not subjectively with our eyes.
-
I've poked a few people about developing such a tool but no bites yet. Anyone reading this interested in making a RGB density and chroma graphing tool? (device support is such a pain, I know...)
Scott, if you use a utility like ColorPort to generate a chart and save the data in LCH format... is the 'C' component of that the chroma that ColorBurst is tracking? If so it ought to be fairly straightforward to graph that data in a spreadsheet. I just did a quick test actually using the L*a*b* data that SpectralVision recorded. Using the equation:
sqrt( a^2 + b^2 )
I extracted the chroma from the L*a*b* data. It matched the numbers being displayed in the screen shots that I took (of the ColorBurst chroma graphs) for cyan, magenta, and yellow. Now... what I'm not sure about is black. Black seems to be some kind of special case. I should have gotten 77.1 for my blackest black (cue Spinal Tap) with the test case I was using but I umm... got... well... 3.02655.
Cheers, Joe
-
Scott, if you use a utility like ColorPort to generate a chart and save the data in LCH format... is the 'C' component of that the chroma that ColorBurst is tracking? If so it ought to be fairly straightforward to graph that data in a spreadsheet.
Good thought Joe! 've been a daily ColorPort user for many years now and love it (but want to see it updated!). Want to get to work making a simple app that we can drag and drop our LCH files onto for graphing? :) Would be nice!
-
Good thought Joe! 've been a daily ColorPort user for many years now and love it (but want to see it updated!). Want to get to work making a simple app that we can drag and drop our LCH files onto for graphing? :) Would be nice!
Maybe remind me in February (I have a lot of balls in the air right now). I haven't touched a line of code since September of 2002 but I keep flirting with the idea of writing something just to see if I can remember anything (the nerd in me misses my coding days).
Cheers, Joe
-
Hi Scott,
these are not density curves, but DeltaE 94 to media white values. So it is combining lightness, chroma and hue, trying to provide linearized measure of saturation.
Not sure if looking at chroma alone is best for our purposes, for example I think darker colors are perceived as more saturated compared to lighter color with the same chroma. It might be even useful to look at Hue itself, if I remember correctly the hue (of one color/ink channel) can change when there's too much ink on paper - close to ink limit. So I plan to make it possible to display these four graphs, Lightness/Luminosity/Density, Chroma, Hue and DeltaE 94, to have better idea of what's going with measured setting. How does it sound?
I also wonder how(and if) to analyze combined ink limiting (compared to looking at primary colors from linearization targets).
Hey Radek, these appear to be density curves, not the chroma curves we're seeking.
The maximum density usually isn't necessarily the optimal one. When we compare ink densities next to chroma values you'll find that they increase together up to a certain point at which the chroma will start to fall as the density continues to increase. This chroma plateau usually occurs pretty close to maximum density but the difference is important. The base of the chroma plateau represents the optimal ink limiting and is helps determine which media setting is optimal. So the moral of the story isL don't go for the maximum density without bleeding - go for the density that maximizes chroma *instead* of density! A better tool for that would be nice. We need to do the colorimetricly, not subjectively with our eyes.