Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: atlproimaging on January 10, 2011, 01:42:21 pm
-
Hello Folks,
Need some help deciding on which one should I get? Purpose of buying one of these prodoucts is for creating profiles for digital RA4 printers. Products such as Kodak Endura Papers and Fuji Professional Papers.
Thanks in advance for your feed back.
-
It depends on the profiling target you are going to use and profiling package. Barbieri is pretty limiting with the stock targets, and making custom targets for Barbieri is not quite easy. Recently I needed to make a custom target containing 2511 patches to profile Metallic paper for Noritsu. i1 is much easier in that regards, especially if you create custom targets using ColorPort. In terms of measurement accuracy my Barbieri is better than my i1.
-
Thanks for your reply,
Software would be profile maker 5.0 or higher. Probably wider chart with more patches.
Primary paper media would be Kodak and fuji Luster and album (Thin) paper.
Any feed back will be greatly appreciated!
-
Based on my experience with minilabs basICColor Print http://www.basiccolor.de/english/Datenblaetter_E/print_E/print_E.htm is an excellent solution, better than PM5, and it works well with ColorPort output. However if you are redy to invest time creating targets for Barbieri it is also a very good solution.
-
Barbieri is a wonderfully well made (and expensive) but if you plan to use ProfileMaker Pro, or the new i1P software coming, I think you’ll be better off and your life easier with the iSis which is far more fully supported.
The barcode target functionality is super cool and useful as are the custom target generators in PMP and i1P.
-
Hi,
Last profiles done on my equipment was on Spectro Scan with profile maker 5.0
I would say these profiles are the best I have seen in the last 10 years of digital printing.
Ofcourse it is not feasible to out source all the time. And it is hard to find Spectro Scans.
Andrew, Please help us to find the right equipment and the right software. We work with 100%
wedding and portrait clients.
Iliah, is ColorPort output a standard on these devices?
Thanks for your advice.
www.atlproimaging.com
karim@atlproimaging.com
-
> is ColorPort output a standard on these devices?
I'm afraid I do not understand the question. ColorPort is a free utility that helps creating, printing and measuring targets with Gretag/X-Rite tools (it does not work with Barbieri tools), as well as maintaining a sort of database for the target references and outputting targets for various instruments. One needs to try it to see if the benefits it suggests over similar MeasureTool functionality are worth using it. ColorPort is capable of outputting a measurement file in PM and Monaco formats which is also convenient at times.
Recently we run a head-to-head competition between PM, Monaco, and basICColor print profiling minilabs (Noritsu 32, 37, Durst), all from the same measurements. basICColor Print won by a good margin by 100% vote especially on wedding dresses.
i1 IMHO is no match to Spectro or iCColor. Barbieri is. Barbieri also exceeds Gretag instruments in resolving far reds.
-
Recently we run a head-to-head competition between PM, Monaco, and basICColor print profiling minilabs (Noritsu 32, 37, Durst), all from the same measurements. basICColor Print won by a good margin by 100% vote especially on wedding dresses.
In all the head-to-head comparisons I've made with labs MP wins hands down. Their perceptual rendering is a true crown jewel and the ability to tweak it is fantastic. IMO, BasICColor has some serious saturation deficiencies especially in the reds and greens.
I think you'll find all of this discussion with soon be moot when i1P arrives. My vote would be to go for an iSis/i1P bundle.
-
I think you'll find all of this discussion with soon be moot when i1P arrives. My vote would be to go for an iSis/i1P bundle.
Agreed. When I did some testing with the two instruments, the differences in the data was tiny so I’d pick one vs. the other based on cost, ease of use, access to software features. That for me would be the iSis due to PMP/i1P/ColorPort custom target usability. Go with either PMP or PROFILER today, you’ll end up with i1P as a free update I’m pretty sure. I’d actually go PMP because you’d have the profile editing module (which can be a pain but is still occasionally useful). The editor in PROFILER is not so hot. IOW, whatever you select today (PMP or PROFILER) will still be usable in the future even though you’ll build profiles in the new i1P software (its better than either). But you might find some legacy module in ProfileMaker Pro (or perhaps PROFILER) useful in the future.
-
Since we're talking about RA4 profiling I'd recommend Monaco Profiler over PMP for it's superior, warmer gray balance (which is important for B&W RA4 prints) it's less pink skin tone rendering and their two step profiling method which is particularly advantageous for fixing the often non linear nature of silver halide machines (especially Noritsu's). The editing isn't great but I actually prefer MP's editor for silver halide editing (when it comes to that).
Anyway, this is all academic isn't it? The end of an era! Good riddance to these ancient apps that we've been married to for so long - for better and for worse.
-
Anyway, this is all academic isn't it? The end of an era! Good riddance to these ancient apps that we've been married to for so long - for better and for worse.
Maybe. That’s why although you may prefer PROFILERs profiles today, and I think we both agree, we’d use i1P, IF someone today buys either product, my understanding is, they can still use them. This puts people today in a unique position they may not have in a year. The ability to buy a legacy product, use it AND get i1P! For example, no ICC camera profiling in i1P (DNG profiles yes). Frankly I don’t care, I doubt I’ll ever build an ICC camera profile. But someone else may and might need that legacy product (unless X-Rite is going to allow i1P users to download and use these legacy products, I don’t know if that will be the case). As I implied, profile editing might be useful to some. Now maybe X-Rite will let all i1P users download and use the legacy products along with i1P, I’m not sure how that is being handled.
-
> IMO, BasICColor has some serious saturation deficiencies especially in the reds and greens.
It depends on how you prepare the custom target.
> I think you'll find all of this discussion with soon be moot when i1P arrives.
Absolutely not. Profiling is not plug and play process with any profiler and any instrument.
-
> IMO, BasICColor has some serious saturation deficiencies especially in the reds and greens.
It depends on how you prepare the custom target.
I'll disagree with you on that but you're welcome to elaborate.
> I think you'll find all of this discussion with soon be moot when i1P arrives.
Absolutely not. Profiling is not plug and play process with any profiler and any instrument.
?What? Do you mean to say that there isn't a universal profiling solution that's compatible with all devices? That would be totally different than the point being made above. IMO, I think the quality, ease of use and price point will make the i1P bundle the obvious choice, especially for RA4 profiling.
-
> non linear nature of silver halide machines (especially Noritsu's).
This is the set of calibration curves for Noritsu generated with printcal utility on a Noritsu with calibration switched off
http://pics.livejournal.com/sail2ithaki/pic/0003b790
This is the set of calibration curves for Noritsu generated from the same target using the same printcal, but now the internal calibration of Noritsu is switched on
http://pics.livejournal.com/sail2ithaki/pic/0003cx6y
printcal utility
http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/printcal.html
In both cases printcal was called with -v -i -p -a parameters.
The target used
http://pics.livejournal.com/sail2ithaki/pic/00039ctt
-
> I'll disagree with you on that but you're welcome to elaborate.
I do not see how I can elaborate. Are you prepared to work on optimizing the profiling target? Or you want to send me the measurements taken from my targets to profile and compare resulting profiles? But in case you are satisfied with your current results, what's the point?
> Do you mean to say that there isn't a universal profiling solution that's compatible with all devices?
Exactly, that is a part of what I'm saying.
> I think the quality, ease of use and price point will make the i1P bundle the obvious choice
Quality for the money and labour with i1P is very good. Quality with free Argyll is even better. It all depends on what are the priorities, and what the client wants.
-
> non linear nature of silver halide machines (especially Noritsu's).
...and if you print a linear grayscale and measure it, the curves you'll see will paint a different picture, that directly relates to the quality of B&W prints. MP and i1P deal with that better than PMP, IMO.
I do not see how I can elaborate.
Any elaboration that would help us understand your point would be helpful. Your talking to an experienced pro and a constant for Noritsu, among many other companies in the industry. You can click on my profile, or the link in my signature to find out more about me - I wish I could say the same about you. Why don't you disclose who you are? Would love to know more about you and that might help the conversation.
Are you prepared to work on optimizing the profiling target?
Oh god yes, I've done quite a bit of this actually.
Or you want to send me the measurements taken from my targets to profile and compare resulting profiles? But in case you are satisfied with your current results, what's the point?
Just help me understand your point about the preparation of the target effecting the perceptual saturation problems in BasICColor.
> Do you mean to say that there isn't a universal profiling solution that's compatible with all devices?
Exactly, that is a part of what I'm saying.
Well that's different, and we gotta be careful about what we say but just about any CGATS files will go into i1P for profiling.
> It all depends on what are the priorities, and what the client wants.
Yes. I've been working with lab oriented end users like the original poster for 20+ years now and can tell you the percentage of them that will want to mess with Argyll will be extremely small! Yes, it's neat stuff for geeks...
-
> Any elaboration
The only elaboration I trust as useful is demonstration.
> tell you the percentage of them that will want to mess with Argyll will be extremely small! Yes, it's neat stuff for geeks...
It is neat stuff for those who want quality.
-
Thank you guys for your feed backs.
We do not use any mini labs such as Noritsu and frontiers.
We have a Chromira 5X Lab and this is a LED printer and we use a Barbieri Densy 460 to linear grayscale
At this point we need to profile RA4 media only for our professional clients. Based on your replies we are going towards Monaco Profiler which will be upgraded any ways with the i1professional.
Should I look for the used Spectro Scan? or just buy the Xrite i1iSis ,i1iO, i1Pro Device.
Any feed backs will be greatly appreciated.
www.atlproimaging.com
karim@atlproimaging.com
-
Are you prepared to work on optimizing the profiling target?
Its quite useful to be able to do so, so yes.
-
Should I look for the used Spectro Scan? or just buy the Xrite i1iSis ,i1iO, i1Pro Device.
Go iSis. Again, the bar code functionally is quite useful, especially if you intend to do more than profile but instead trending! You can build a custom target for this task (colors within color space of the device, colors that are problematic) and an operator can read this easily thanks to the auto barcode. Better still, setup a track in Maxwell (from Chromix). ColorShuttle and Maxwell with an iSis, awesome process control suite.
-
> tell you the percentage of them that will want to mess with Argyll will be extremely small! Yes, it's neat stuff for geeks...
It is neat stuff for those who want quality.
As a nerd I really enjoyed playing with Argyll but for RGB profiles I found that Monaco Profiler built more versatile profiles with a higher quality output. Based on experience I can say that i1 Profiler represents another step up in terms of quality. Argyll is certainly a great alternative to Eye One Match but I don't find that it can compete with what Monaco or i1 Profiler is capable of (especially i1 Profiler).
Cheers, Joe
-
As a nerd I really enjoyed playing with Argyll but for RGB profiles I found that Monaco Profiler built more versatile profiles with a higher quality output. Based on experience I can say that i1 Profiler represents another step up in terms of quality. Argyll is certainly a great alternative to Eye One Match but I don't find that it can compete with what Monaco or i1 Profiler is capable of (especially i1 Profiler).
Cheers, Joe
To see what you mean by Profiler being better than Argyll I need to see your measurements of the calibration, profiling, and verification targets. Without those it is impossible to find what is the problem and how it happened that Profiler rendered "more versatile" and "higher quality" profiles.
-
To see what you mean by Profiler being better than Argyll I need to see your measurements of the calibration, profiling, and verification targets. Without those it is impossible to find what is the problem and how it happened that Profiler rendered "more versatile" and "higher quality" profiles.
When i1Profiler is released to the public, check it out. If you still think Argyll is better I'll be very interested in seeing where I can potentially make improvements. I have zero loyalty to any manufacturer... whatever the best tool for the job is!
Cheers, Joe
-
I fully expected to see your measurements.
Instead you replied with another praise to "the market leader" who abandoned Spectrolino and iCColor in a rush to get the consumer end of the market. Now with i1Profiler they declared "no scanner support" (indicating "Industry reports show that support is no longer needed"), skipping profile editing, sipping camera ICC profiles (only DNG is supported with such a limited tool as 24-patch Passport). This means it is not going to be a pro solution.
Perhaps I know a tad more about i1Profiler than you think I do.
By the way i1Profiler is not yet released. On October 27, 2010 XRite Marketing went public saying:
"The new i1 Professional Color Management Solutions including i1Photo Pro will be available in November 2010 from X-Rite’s online store (North America and Europe), and also from the company’s worldwide network of resellers."
>> When i1Profiler is released to the public
>> Based on experience I can say that i1 Profiler represents another step up in terms of quality.
> I have zero loyalty to any manufacturer
Nothing to add, you said it all yourself.
-
Now with i1Profiler they declared "no scanner support" (indicating "Industry reports show that support is no longer needed"), skipping profile editing, sipping camera ICC profiles (only DNG is supported with such a limited tool as 24-patch Passport). This means it is not going to be a pro solution.
Those solutions already exist in products they produce (PMP) and can be used with the dongle along with i1P. There really is very little reason or justification to spend the considerable engineering costs to put that into a new product based on the number of users who will exploit those tools.
-
Those solutions already exist in products they produce (PMP) and can be used with the dongle along with i1P. There really is very little reason or justification to spend the considerable engineering costs to put that into a new product based on the number of users who will exploit those tools.
Hm, camera profiling outside of DNG has little justification? ColorChecker Passport is all one needs to profile a camera? Current scanner profiling support level is enough? Companies producing high-end scanners are wrong, while XRite marketing is right and scanning is not an important pro application? Profile editing has little justification? Seems like a different universe, probably virtual. And by the way ColorPort 2 does not support iCColor, how's that?
-
Hm, camera profiling outside of DNG has little justification?
Based on how well it works, sure. Use the legacy products. ICC camera profiling IMHO has always been hit or miss for a lot of reasons. You want to go down that rabbit hole, fine, use the module in ProfileMaker Pro.
The ColorChecker product produces quite a different kind of profile, based on quite different data (scene referred), in a different process (a raw converter).
Just what companies are producing high-end scanners what would not be able to use scanner profiles built in PMP or PROFILER?
So you are saying the vast majority of users would be happy to spend more money on i1P for those features?
You write you know a lot more about i1P can you tell us the cost for new users or the upgrade fees and how that compares to what PMP or PROFILER cost new, say a year ago?
-
And by the way ColorPort 2 does not support iCColor, how's that?
MeasureTool does. PROFILER does. What’s the problem?
And by the way, Photoshop CS5 does not support my PowerPC either. Hows that?
-
>> Hm, camera profiling outside of DNG has little justification?
> Based on how well it works, sure.
It does not work well first of all; second, ColorChecker Passport Beta included general icc profiler; third, icc is a standard and dropping support for a standard does not look good; forth - the decision not to support general icc profiles for cameras is dangerously close to interfering with non-ACR/LR workflows which are many; finally, 24 reflective patches are not enough if one needs a good reproduction of, say, a painting - it is done using a custom target made with the paints that are close to those that were actually used, the very minimum, and it is totally insufficient for normal profiling of cameras which includes spectral measurements of AA/CFA/sensor characteristics.
> ICC camera profiling IMHO has always been hit or miss for a lot of reasons
Main reason is, it was not payed enough attention.
> The ColorChecker product produces quite a different kind of profile
I know what is that "profile". I can even generate normal icc profiles from it.
> Just what companies are producing high-end scanners what would not be able to use scanner profiles built in PMP or PROFILER?
No grey field equalization and no flare compensation is enough not to use any current XRite products for high-quality scanner profiling. The offerings they have here are based on 15-year old technology, are not based on the spectral measurements of film dyes and substrate, do not allow entry of the colour filters SPDs, and are not well-suited for current films and papers.
> So you are saying the vast majority of users would be happy to spend more money on i1P for those features?
Ah, that was my fav. You probably ever heard of modules, separate licensing, plugins, etc., right?
With 3 CTP, 2 Heidelbergs, proofers etc., quality monitors, booths, lights, pre-press and pressmen salaries, huge building, do you think the price matters if the product really offers a solution? That was a rhetorical question of course.
Hypothesis does not work well, but carry on...
-
> MeasureTool does. PROFILER does. What’s the problem?
The problem is workflow and converting all targets saved in ColorPort format into CGATS.
> And by the way, Photoshop CS5 does not support my PowerPC either. Hows that?
You probably need CS5, and can upgrade your Mac or build a hackintosh, which will save you a few bucks.
-
No one is dropping support. For the third time, there ARE current solutions available to use.
http://www.xrite.com/Documents/Literature/EN/L7-493-chartonly_en.pdf:
Switching to i1Publish is easy and affordable. And if you’re worried about the features you loved most in your old solution,
you’ll get them all and more in i1Publish
No grey field equalization and no flare compensation is enough not to use any current XRite products for high-quality scanner profiling
Then use a product that does.
Hypothesis does not work well, but carry on...
You are the one providing a Hypothesis. I’m simply telling you that there are legacy solutions prior to i1P that work and allow users to access that functionality. Your Hypothesis is, i1P strips you of this functionality, therefore its not a pro level solution. You clearly stated: This means it is not going to be a pro solution.
I think you know less about i1P than you think you do.
-
The problem is workflow and converting all targets saved in ColorPort format into CGATS.
It can be done. If you can save out a PROFILER session, it can be converted and used in ColorPort. Its a few steps, but it can be done.
-
> I’m simply telling you that there are legacy solutions prior to i1P that work and allow users to access that functionality
That is a legacy functionality, and they are not progressing with it. A bell tolls.
> I think you know less about i1P than you think you do.
Trying to hypnotize everybody around one may end hypnotizing oneself. That's all.
-
It can be done. If you can save out a PROFILER session, it can be converted and used in ColorPort. Its a few steps, but it can be done.
It is vice versa.
-
That is a legacy functionality, and they are not progressing with it.
So if they had a module for say building a scanner profile, it produced exactly the same profile as you’d get in PMP but it was part of the new package, that make you feel better?
-
So if they had a module for say building a scanner profile, it produced exactly the same profile as you’d get in PMP but it was part of the new package, that make you feel better?
Absolutely yes. It would give a hope for progress and improvement.
-
Absolutely yes. It would give a hope for progress and improvement.
That’s really funny. So you can get the same results using the old product. But assuming its in the new product, you expect they will work on it (and with the number of scanners operating, being built and sold). But the current profile is working for you. So the Hypothesis is, just put it into the new product, despite the cost and how many users will use it. Then the Hypothesis is, the company is going to improve it. The Hypothesis is, the current version that will ship (1.0) isn’t a pro level tool because the functionality that would be identical to a product that exists isn’t implemented. Despite the possibility that in a 2.0 product it might be (again producing the identical profile).
-
> That’s really funny.
Yes indeed.
> But the current profile is working for you.
No it does not.
> Then the Hypothesis is, the company is going to improve it.
The fact is, they either improve it or abandon it. They decided to abandon. From the statistics coming from my friends who own hybrid labs, last 3 years type 135 film is 15% of their printing, with MF and LF adding another 2% of volume, all steady numbers; while the absolute volumes grow. They scan a lot, and they need good scanner profiles. I taught them to use Argyll with their scanner profiles needs, and next thing I know they asked me to train their folks to use Argyll for minilab profiling. I highly doubt they are going now to invest into any i1 software. It lacks RGB calibration anyway. Now, what next to expect XRite to drop off? Is it CMYK? Highly possible. Do I have faith in such a company? Why should I invest money into such a product or such a company that abandons parts of workflow?
-
The fact is, they either improve it or abandon it.
Its not a fact. You can say its a fact, but they could easily just build the legacy functionality into the new product that would produce the same results as using the legacy product. Nothing stops them from doing this expect the cost for engineering. Most users would have no idea anyway.
I taught them to use Argyll with their scanner profiles needs, and next thing I know they asked me to train their folks to use Argyll for minilab profiling.
And if that product does a better job, and if those users are happy with that product, great. To say that the i1P, lacking scanner profiling is not a pro product, for anyone who either doesn’t build scanner profiles (a lot of users) or for those that find the legacy product acceptable is simply your opinion based on a good deal of Hypothesis. To say that placing the identical functionality into the new product would make it now a pro profiling application seems silly to me (that’s my opinion, nothing more). Its been at least 6 years since I needed to make a scanner profile. If you need to make one tomorrow, and the legacy products from X-Rite are not affective, you are entitled to use or buy another product. Do so.
-
> Its not a fact.
It is a fact, like life - one is either dead or alive. If he is alive he evolves. When he stops evolving he dies.
> they could easily just build the legacy functionality into the new product
Right, after announcing "it is not needed". I do not see your arguments re other points I made. You are loosing ground here.
> Most users would have no idea anyway.
Snobbish it sounds, yes.
> To say that placing the identical functionality into the new product would make it now a pro profiling application seems silly to me (that’s my opinion, nothing more).
And your opinion is only what counts here.
> Its been at least 6 years since I needed to make a scanner profile.
Probably you are not shooting film.
> you are entitled to use or buy another product.
Right. After investing tens of hundreds into Gretag/XRite hardware and software I'm moving on.