Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: John MacLean on July 15, 2011, 02:53:21 pm
-
Here is a post I put on my facebook fan page notes about my recent experience: Where's the Beef? Or in this case, Where's the Loyalty (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150238149132312)
I recently sent this email to X-Rite to voice my opinion on their new software that is required with the upcoming Mac OS X Lion upgrade. The software I have works with Rosetta emulation, which is not supported in Lion.
Let me know your thoughts. And if you agree with me you can email Brenda Hipsher and let her know how you feel.
brenda@macgroupus.com
http://www.facebook.com/xritephoto
http://blog.xritephoto.com/?p=4360
Thanks,
John
PS - This email was sent last, after several exchanges, and previous entries on facebook and their blog. I'm still waiting for a reply.
----
Brenda,
I don't expect to be charged for what should be an OS compatibility upgrade. And if so, not anywhere near that amount. Since I'm a legacy hardware customer, you should be servicing your hardware with lower priced or free upgrades. I was completely happy with what Eye - One Match 3.6.3 offered, and I don't think I can even begin to understand the Assets explanation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEyqwBkdnA) (3:20) in i1Profiler! It seems like a good opportunity for X-Rite to change the licensing model for your new customers, but it's a slap in my face for what I've already invested.
X-Rite i1Photo Pro Professional Color Management EOPHO B&H Photo - $1300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/751479-REG/X_Rite_EOPHO_i1Photo_Pro_Professional_Color.html)
(to totally replace and update my current kit.)
X-Rite i1Beamer EOB B&H Photo Video - $945 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/477395-REG/X_Rite_421740.html)
(for just the Spectro and the old software.)
X-Rite i1Publish Software (Upgrade A) EOPROF-UPGA B&H Photo $422 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/759155-REG/X_Rite_EOPROF_UPGA_i1Publish_Software_Upgrade_A.html)
$1300 - 945 = $355 - the difference is less than your software upgrade.
Eye-One - mostly hardware based
Full Version $1300
My Upgrade $ 422 (32.5%)
for reference:
Adobe CS5 - totally software based
Full Version $700
Upgrade $200 (28.5 %)
John
---
My friend Curt Peters is also in the same boat and here's his rant: http://www.facebook.com/DigitalDunesPhoto
-
John, I feel your pain - and maybe/probably Xrite should find a better option for loyal customers.
On the other hand if Lion isn't as good as Tiger, then maybe sitting still is the right play. Not all upgrades are up.
-
John,
You are raising a very fundamental issue, but I'm not sure I agree with your position. On the one hand, it would be nice that once having invested in a product, the developer makes a commitment to maintain its usability regardless of what technical challenges are thrown in their path by changes in systems completely beyond their control.
My main complaint with X-Rite is their habit of prematurely dropping support for perfectly good products they sold people on only a few years ago, when there was no compelling workability reasons for doing so. Much of that falls into the category of corporate jockeying and profit maximization for its own sake, but that isn't the context of this issue. This issue about how third party vendors respond to host system changes.
They never made a commitment to keep customers whole free of charge under all circumstances. Very few do or would. Because of some other work I'm involved with, I happen to know that re-writing code to make complex applications cohere with new operating systems can be an extremely costly proposition, even if all they do is maintain the pre-existing feature set; but typically, they would also build-in better technology and new features people have been asking for. All this requires conceptualizing, coding, testing, re-coding, re-testing, documentation, packaging marketing and all the management meetings and decisions that need to be made in the process of getting all this together. There's no manna from heaven to pay the salaries and overheads needed to do these things. So that leaves the customers. I regret, but that's real life.
-
Personally I'm grateful, that X-Rite's "department of silly walks" effectively dicouraged me from upgrading to i1profiler, gave impulse to overcome my innate laziness and finally learn to use Argyll CMS. I had a good time, nice intellectual challange, and saved a lot of money.
-
So Apple drop a feature that you need to run your hardware and you moan about the hardware vendor ?
Seems a bit skewed to me.
-
So Apple drop a feature that you need to run your hardware and you moan about the hardware vendor ?
Seems a bit skewed to me.
I understand John’s frustration but I kind of agree with you. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to Lion. Doing so will hose a lot of legacy software, much being far more accessed by users than a color management product (Quicken is dead as an example of a product some may use very regularly). I’m wasn’t happy when lots of software I ran under OS9 was DOA when OS X came out either. You deal with it. Expecting every company to come up with an upgrade for free, due to a newer OS seems a bit unreasonable although some companies provide more modest software upgrade fees than others. If you are running a set of applications without issue, you are asking for trouble whenever a major OS comes out and for many, upgrading that OS is a bad idea.
-
My main complaint with X-Rite is their habit of prematurely dropping support for perfectly good products they sold people on only a few years ago, when there was no compelling workability reasons for doing so. Much of that falls into the category of corporate jockeying and profit maximization for its own sake, but that isn't the context of this issue. This issue about how third party vendors respond to host system changes.
Might I suggest it has much to do with the cost of engineering. We can come up with conspiracy theories but there is a reality that can’t be dismissed: updating software can be expensive (ask a much bigger company like Adobe how going Mac 64-bit hurt the bottom line). Depending on the legacy code and what needs to be updated, starting with a clean slate, especially as some technologies evolve can be a better move for both the end user and the company. A small company like X-Rite (at least a small division like their CMS group) is kind of in a no win situation. If they spend the resources updating both ProfileMaker Pro and PROFILER, users complain they need a newer product. If the produce a newer product that runs in newer OS’s with newer capabilities, users complain they are not upgrading really old products. ProfileMaker Pro was released a very long time ago as was PROFILER. Which should X-Rite address assuming limited funds and resources?
-
Might I suggest it has much to do with the cost of engineering. We can come up with conspiracy theories but there is a reality that can’t be dismissed: updating software can be expensive (ask a much bigger company like Adobe how going Mac 64-bit hurt the bottom line). Depending on the legacy code and what needs to be updated, starting with a clean slate, especially as some technologies evolve can be a better move for both the end user and the company. A small company like X-Rite (at least a small division like their CMS group) is kind of in a no win situation. If they spend the resources updating both ProfileMaker Pro and PROFILER, users complain they need a newer product. If the produce a newer product that runs in newer OS’s with newer capabilities, users complain they are not upgrading really old products. ProfileMaker Pro was released a very long time ago as was PROFILER. Which should X-Rite address assuming limited funds and resources?
Yes, I myself mentioned that the cost of re-engineering stuff can be very high, and that up-graded products can come with newer technologies and features that are helpful, so no disagreement there. The rest of the story in the case of that particular company, however, is not a conspiracy theory.
-
So Apple drop a feature that you need to run your hardware and you moan about the hardware vendor ?
Seems a bit skewed to me.
I was thinking more like Apple supplied Rossetta which allowed the eye one photo with i1 match software to work on OSX and that was five or six years ago. And the hardware vendor (X-Rite) has never supplied a natively run software program..... it only worked through Rosetta. Their current i1 Pro is not any different than what they offered only 4 years ago (The hardware is the same).... only the software has been upgraded and it works natively with OSX and will continue to work with the Lion up-grade. Now that X-Rite has a problem in that Rosetta is no longer a feature in Lion.... their product is rendered useless. Their answer is to charge 499.00 for their latest software and no new hardware is included in the up-grade for RGB management (899.00 if you need CMYK and RGB management).
-
I understand John’s frustration but I kind of agree with you. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to Lion. Doing so will hose a lot of legacy software, much being far more accessed by users than a color management product (Quicken is dead as an example of a product some may use very regularly). I’m wasn’t happy when lots of software I ran under OS9 was DOA when OS X came out either. You deal with it. Expecting every company to come up with an upgrade for free, due to a newer OS seems a bit unreasonable although some companies provide more modest software upgrade fees than others. If you are running a set of applications without issue, you are asking for trouble whenever a major OS comes out and for many, upgrading that OS is a bad idea.
I'm a friend of John's and I feel his pain too as I'm in the same boat as him. I've spoken with John recently and we both agree that a fee for upgrades is okay, but our beef is with the pricing. Apple supplied Rossetta which allowed the X-Rite's eye one photo with i1 match software to work on OSX and that was five or six years ago. And the hardware vendor (X-Rite) never supplied a natively run software program..... it only worked through Rosetta. Their current i1 Pro is not any different than what they offered only 4 years ago (The hardware is the same).... only the software has been upgraded and it works natively with OSX and will continue to work with the Lion up-grade. Now that X-Rite has a problem in that Rosetta is no longer a feature in Lion.... their product of from 4 short years ago is rendered useless. Their answer is to charge 499.00 for their latest software (which has already been developed and is in place). No new hardware is included in the up-grade for RGB management (899.00 if you need CMYK and RGB management). I am very willing to spend 150.00 to 200.00 for an upgrade to run my equipment but at 499.00 I really have to question it. I believe John and myself are pissed at the exorbitant fee to be able to continue using a great product that we so willingly promote.
You also mentioned and asked the question, "A small company like X-Rite (at least a small division like their CMS group) is kind of in a no win situation. If they spend the resources updating both ProfileMaker Pro and PROFILER, users complain they need a newer product. If the produce a newer product that runs in newer OS’s with newer capabilities, users complain they are not upgrading really old products. ProfileMaker Pro was released a very long time ago as was PROFILER. Which should X-Rite address assuming limited funds and resources?"...
Didn't they choose the later and came out with a new product "i1 Pro" which is identical hardware, but much improved software that runs native in OSX and will already work with lion. That was only about 4 years ago. They never offered the up-grade until they found out Rosetta was being dropped in Lion and that many of their users would have their equipment rendered useless.
You are right that we don't need to move on to Lion, but in a few short months all MACS will be shipping with the all new Lion, so if you want to get the latest you will have to pay for it.... and X-Rite is trying to take too large of an advantage in this.... ex-specially since no new research and development and re-codeing would be needed.... they have already developed it in their new i1 Pro.
In X-rites defense.... they offered me this: I could download free software that would allow me to continue profiling my monitor only with the Hardware I already own, but if I wanted to be able to profile my printer I would have to get the 499.00 upgrade, or use a Dual Boot feature in Lion that will allow me to re-boot into Snow Leopard use the i1 Match software to profile the printer and then re-boot back into Lion. This is not a bad option and costs nothing but some extra time switching back and forth between the operating systems. I just feel like I never got a Native software program, but paid full price for exactly what they offer now (less the newer software).
-
You all are targeting the wrong company. Shouldn't you be complaining to Apple as they are not supporting legacy software that you deem to be important? I don't know how X-Rite (or if it was one of the acquired companies) programmed the older products and maybe there was just two much OS dependent code in the base application (poor programming) that made it very difficult to update (and of course there is really no financial incentive to do this unless they are going to charge you for an upgrade). If they did that from a programming perspective, it was poor design as the machine dependent code should always be separate and as much as possible should be in a standard language that is platform independent. Look at the Argyll tools, they can be compiled to work on a variety of different platforms with not problems at all (and this is all the work of ONE individual). There have been enough threads on LuLa over the past year about problems of one kind or another with Apple and it's business model (yes that is what it is, just a business model) of OS upgrades. You either accept this and move on to new software that works on the new OS, keep your current hardware and OS and hope that you don't have to buy new hardware (since it is not backward compatible) or you move to Windows where you have backwards compatibility. Three pretty simple choices as I see it.
-
I'm in the camp that had a Pulse that worked perfectly fine until Snow Leopard. So, I upgraded according to Xrite to an i1Pro to work with my new Mac. This was only about 2 years ago. So, I supposedly had new hardware and software that would work with the new OS. I did call Xrite at the time and asked them about the installer and the software because I saw it was using Rosetta. They told me it would be fine with the OS and moving forward. Well, then the fiasco happened with the software and blue scum dot and V4 profiles. So now I had hardware that worked but not software. As some of you know I just couldn't take the interruption in workflow and set up a pc running Qimage as a print server to drive my printer's. All work is done on the Mac and then moved to the pc for print. It's fine, I've accepted the work around. Then all of the sudden with Mark D. saying his Pulse was working under SL, I tried that again on my Mac and indeed it does work. Alabeit it also needs Rosetta. So, my comment would be that Xrite had years to make a Universal or Intel installer and chose not to. I don't have other iOS devices that I need to sync. There seems to be nothing in Lion that I would absolutly need. Both my Mac's are current enough where I will not be purchasing a new one so for me all is well without an OS upgrade. I see what way Apple is going and it just is a sign of the times. After all they are a business. I still say Xrite had years to come up with a universal installer and chose not to until they rewrote the software. Really, you could have bought an i1Pro just last year and it would not run at this point under Lion unless you update the software.
-
There's nothing I've heard about Lion that makes it a compelling up-grade. I'm skipping it. I repeat what I've said before: upgrade if necessary, don't necessarily upgrade. As for X-Rite - bewildering pile of confusion between all their offerings. If they manage the whole company the way they manage their marketing, ..........well, the less said the better.
-
In X-rites defense.... they offered me this: I could download free software that would allow me to continue profiling my monitor only with the Hardware I already own, but if I wanted to be able to profile my printer I would have to get the 499.00 upgrade, or use a Dual Boot feature in Lion that will allow me to re-boot into Snow Leopard use the i1 Match software to profile the printer and then re-boot back into Lion. This is not a bad option and costs nothing but some extra time switching back and forth between the operating systems. I just feel like I never got a Native software program, but paid full price for exactly what they offer now (less the newer software).
So what would people here feel is a reasonable upgrade fee for those that are unwilling to use the above solution? Keep in mind, reasonable has to take both parties into consideration. Free isn’t going to cut it for X-Rite (remember they have to pay for development which includes upgrades), users feel $499 is too much.
-
So what would people here feel is a reasonable upgrade fee for those that are unwilling to use the above solution? Keep in mind, reasonable has to take both parties into consideration. Free isn’t going to cut it for X-Rite (remember they have to pay for development which includes upgrades), users feel $499 is too much.
I don't have a horse to ride in this race since I use Argyll to do profiling and the price of that product is clearly right. If you look at what we routinely pay for LR/PS upgrades, it is less than $499 for the two and we get a lot of great new features. In the case of profiling software, is X-Rite delivering a large amount of new features for $499? Is their anticipated volume of upgrades as large as what Adobe gets for each new LR/PS upgrade? I suspect the answers to these two questions are no which is why X-Rite has priced things the way they did (purely from a business perspective in response to question two) and why users of older software are outraged (in response to question one). Tough issue on both sides but then the expectations of the digital age are that everything should be free (or almost free).
-
So it appears that i1Pro (not publish) is like $1399 but with hardware. If you provide a 70% off upgrade discount which is pretty decent, you get an upgrade fee of $420. So maybe the $499 is a tad high...
I know that Pixel Genius offers a 70% off upgrade fee (I mention this not to attract upgrades although that’s nice, I mention it because its the only personal and real experience I have providing software upgrades for customers). Now maybe 70% is not enough. Or maybe when you bundle hardware with your product, something that is part of this X-rite package, the discount should be different. I’m simply asking people here to consider what would be a reasonable upgrade fee for software only. So lets take the LR scenario. At least on Adobe’s site, LR is new, $299, upgrades are $99. 70% off would be $90 for the upgrade. We’re not too far off here math wise right? And yes, for your 30% fee, you do get some new, useful functionality in i1P, the most being superior quality profiles and of course the ability to run that software in Lion (which ain’t free either and will likely cost you money on other software upgrades).
Note too, X-Rite can’t give Mac users a better upgrade path than Windows users, just because Mac users are stuck with this new, optional OS that breaks their older software!
In the end, is $499 worth the newer features and newer OS compatibility to you? But looking at two other examples of upgrades (PG and Adobe), I don’t think X-Rite is over the top here. In hindsight, an upgrade fee of $399 or $419 might have attracted more upgrades but that’s pure speculation on my part.
-
So what would people here feel is a reasonable upgrade fee for those that are unwilling to use the above solution? Keep in mind, reasonable has to take both parties into consideration. Free isn’t going to cut it for X-Rite (remember they have to pay for development which includes upgrades), users feel $499 is too much.
yes, I have already agreed that we should have to pay for up-grades. I have already got the i1 pro hardware that came with i1 match software... bought it 4.5 years ago for around 1500.00 from B&H. For 4.5 years I've heard X-rite would come out with a native software solution..... in the meantime I have used it using Rosetta.... well they never held their promise to get us a native solution.... instead they worked out the bugs and released version 3.6.3 i1 match software which still ran under rosetta. Okay, now for the math by your standards...... X-Rite i1Photo Pro Professional Color Management EOPHO B&H Photo - $1300
(to totally replace my hardware with exactly what I already have but would include the new software.). X-Rite i1Beamer EOB B&H Photo Video - $945 (for just the Spectro, hardware and the old software.) 1300.00 - 945.00 = 355.55.... so it appears that xrite deems the value of the new software at around 355.00. 355.00 x 70% =248.00. I already said I would happily pay 150 to 200..... using your math.... 250.00 would please me and I would pay this to continue using my equipment. Even if they came down to earth and priced by this model, my only gripe would be that in reality i would have to spend 1500.00 (price 4.5 years ago) + 248.00 (for my first ever Native software) for a total of 1748.00 spent on color management...... of which a new user today can get it all for 1300.00.
-
Okay, now for the math by your standards...... X-Rite i1Photo Pro Professional Color Management EOPHO B&H Photo - $1300
(to totally replace my hardware with exactly what I already have but would include the new software.). X-Rite i1Beamer EOB B&H Photo Video - $945 (for just the Spectro, hardware and the old software.) 1300.00 - 945.00 = 355.55.... so it appears that xrite deems the value of the new software at around 355.00. 355.00 x 70% =248.00.
I’m not clear on the above. We agree new, the product is $1300 from X-rite. Are you saying you got the product for $945? I’m not understanding the $355 value.
-
I’m not clear on the above. We agree new, the product is $1300 from X-rite. Are you saying you got the product for $945? I’m not understanding the $355 value.
I agree that the pricing is confusing at xrite's site. I did not get the product for 945.00.... I paid close to 1500.00 4.5 yrs ago. the 945.00 price is for the i1 beamer which is basically what I have now... the spectrophotometer and the i1 match software.... all I need is the software... 1300-945=355.
-
I agree that the pricing is confusing at xrite's site. I did not get the product for 945.00.... I paid close to 1500.00 4.5 yrs ago. the 945.00 price is for the i1 beamer which is basically what I have now... the spectrophotometer and the i1 match software.... all I need is the software... 1300-945=355.
Andrew, if you look at the B&H links in my OP, you'll see the Beamer for $945. It comes with Eye-One Match 3.6.3 and the spectro. Basically, the bulk of this is "me assuming here" probably the cost of the spectro, and not the software - yes/no? So the difference between buying the whole kit new for $1300 minus the spectro/3.6.3 for $945 = $355. If I already own the spectro, I don't think I should be charged more than $355 for some software that is in my eyes nothing more than an OS capable patch. Sure they have some geeky stuff that will give hard on's to some people, but will it really make better profiles? I haven't seen any suggestions from X-R that that's going to happen.
-
Andrew, if you look at the B&H links in my OP, you'll see the Beamer for $945. It comes with Eye-One Match 3.6.3 and the spectro. Basically, the bulk of this is "me assuming here" probably the cost of the spectro, and not the software - yes/no?
Maybe. I see the logic, I can’t say for sure this is a fair appraisal of the software.
Sure they have some geeky stuff that will give hard on's to some people, but will it really make better profiles?
Yes. In some cases (for CMYK output profiles san’s scum dot) very much so.
-
I don't think I should be charged more than $355 for some software that is in my eyes nothing more than an OS capable patch.
EyeOneMatch was created eons ago and has dead end code - some of which is from the 90s. i1Profiler is a whole new, from-the-ground-up generation of software with a fresh code base that was needed to push the technology forward and support modern OSes. Thay've laid the groundwork for great things to come.
When we consider all of this and the historical upgrade costs of XRite pro software ($1500+), the i1P upgrade costs are pretty cheap, IMO.
Sure they have some geeky stuff that will give hard on's to some people, but will it really make better profiles?
Yes, the profiles really are better. This stuff really matters for pros.
I think they're being loyal to their pro customers by releasing this software at these reasonable rates. Of course their consumer stuff (Munki, Huey and i1Display) products are reasonable too and have Lion support. No complaints here. I'm glad I can move forward, but Loin is going to be a tricky upgrade to oversee with care, because of other software.
-
Maybe. I see the logic, I can’t say for sure this is a fair appraisal of the software.
Yes. In some cases (for CMYK output profiles san’s scum dot) very much so.
Andrew, fair or not, lets not forget the fact that we've never gotten Native Software, but paid full price. Also as pro photographer's, most of us probably don't have the need for CMYK output, I think we would be happy with just the RGB output....... and at xrite's site they indicate that the RGB output only is 499.00 whlie if you need RGB and CMYK the up-grade is 899.00
-
Andrew, fair or not, lets not forget the fact that we've never gotten Native Software, but paid full price.
That’s true for a slew of software products (many installed on my machine, many I use more often than this product). Its not like X-Rite (or Intuit or others) knew 5 years ago that they would have no support for Rosetta or would be forced to update their software for Lion. Just look how recently we get native software for Photoshop! And at a price.
Also as pro photographer's we probably don't have the need for CMYK output, I think we would be happy with just the RGB output....... and at xrite's site they indicate that the RGB output only is 499.00 whlie if you need RGB and CMYK the up-grade is 899.00
I’m simply stating that the new software builds better profiles, both RGB and CMYK. I don’t assume pro photographers don’t need CMYK (they seem a perfect group to control this process).
-
That’s true for a slew of software products (many installed on my machine, many I use more often than this product). Its not like X-Rite (or Intuit or others) knew 5 years ago that they would have no support for Rosetta or would be forced to update their software for Lion. Just look how recently we get native software for Photoshop! And at a price.
I’m simply stating that the new software builds better profiles, both RGB and CMYK. I don’t assume pro photographers don’t need CMYK (they seem a perfect group to control this process).
Yes true. At a pricing model similar to the one that you described earlier (70%).... and the native version's increased speed amongst other things made it worth every penny! :) I believe in xrite's product, but I stand firm in my belief that the pricing should be worth around 250.00 for the RGB and 500.00 for both the RGB and CMYK. Where do you stand on what the correct price should be?
Yes, I changed the wording to read " as pro photographers, most of us don't need CMYK " xrite did realize this and hence have two up-grades, one for RGB only and one for both CMYK & RGB.
-
I’m simply stating that the new software builds better profiles, both RGB and CMYK. I don’t assume pro photographers don’t need CMYK (they seem a perfect group to control this process).
From what I've observed the quality improvement of an RGB profile using i1Profiler relative to what I produce with the 2005/6 vintage Pulse Elite is small.
-
From what I've observed the quality improvement of an RGB profile using i1Profiler relative to what I produce with the 2005/6 vintage Pulse Elite is small.
The Pulse was a good product! The difference is greater for those coming from EyeOneMatch - as is the case with the OP. The display profiling is also significantly improved.
-
The Pulse was a good product! The difference is greater for those coming from EyeOneMatch - as is the case with the OP. The display profiling is also significantly improved.
Yes of course, and that's why they shouldn't have canned it so prematurely. A lot of the complaint with X-Rite is this kind of stuff. For display profiling BasicColor is also excellent, but one needs to exercise care over the selection of colorimeter to match the requirements of the display and make sure it is supported. Maybe one of these decades colour management will become user-friendly, but one doesn't see either X-Rite or the OS providers contributing to this erstwhile state of nervana.
-
Yes of course, and that's why they shouldn't have canned it so prematurely.
A necessary consequence to the GMB merger... The DTP70 got caught in that too.
Maybe one of these decades colour management will become user-friendly, but one doesn't see either X-Rite or the OS providers contributing to this erstwhile state of nervana.
I don't know. Try i1Profiler. I think they've done a great job of providing pro level capacity without the overwhelming complexity of apps like Basiccolor Display or ArgyllCMS. I'm finding it to be a pretty elegant solution for lots of my clients.
I do agree that things should be easier. I would have thought that by 2011 all kinds of CM magic would be happening under the hood so that we can spend our brainpower elsewhere.
-
A necessary consequence to the GMB merger... The DTP70 got caught in that too.
Necessary consequence? How so? Maybe a strategic business decision, but why "necessary"?
-
Yes, I changed the wording to read " as pro photographers, most of us don't need CMYK " xrite did realize this and hence have two up-grades, one for RGB only and one for both CMYK & RGB.
Odd - the two upgrades (EOPROF-A/B) to i1Profiler from what I read both included all the features of i1Profiler (both RGB/CMYK profiling), the cost difference was dependant on which prior i1Pro solution had before. Ie - higher end i1Pros like the i1 XT[reme] had cheaper upgrades while the i1 Basic or LT editions had the more expensive upgrade. If you're purchasing from new you get the i1 Photo Pro (RGB only) or i1 Publish Pro (RGB & CMYK) option, but for upgrades from older i1Pro's I'm pretty sure you get both unless I'm missing something?
-
Odd - the two upgrades (EOPROF-A/B) to i1Profiler from what I read both included all the features of i1Profiler (both RGB/CMYK profiling), the cost difference was dependant on which prior i1Pro solution had before.
Yes, you've got it. Alot for the money, no?
-
Yes, you've got it. Alot for the money, no?
Yes, I was just puzzled why Curt keeps misinterpreting (?) the pricing of upgrades over the feature set as you get both RGB and CMYK profiling (+4) with the i1Publish upgrade (either A or B).
-
Yes, I was just puzzled why Curt keeps misinterpreting (?) the pricing of upgrades over the feature set as you get both RGB and CMYK profiling (+4) with the i1Publish upgrade (either A or B).
What he is probably annoyed by is that the CMYK module is not an option on the upgrade offered.
You have to upgrade to the full all inclusive version of i1Publish, whereas new purchasers can opt for "i1Photo Pro" package without the CMYK capability at a lower cost than the "i1Publish Pro" package.
It has to be remembered that newcomers to colour management, without the benefit of a chronological knowledge of how that product range has arisen, can find X-Rite's product offerings over the last year very confusing. Discontinuing Monoco Profiler, PMP and the iMatch based offering at least will make their product range more comprehensible in future.
However it remains the case that the OP's problem is not fundamentally X-Rite's problem, but has been caused by Apple's OS upgrade. As Curt says in reply 9 "if you want to get the latest you will have to pay for it" and this has always been part of the Faustian pact of Mac ownership.
-
However it remains the case that the OP's problem is not fundamentally X-Rite's problem, but has been caused by Apple's OS upgrade. As Curt says in reply 9 "if you want to get the latest you will have to pay for it" and this has always been part of the Faustian pact of Mac ownership.
I didn't want to jump in on this because I'm not a Mac person, but I can't see how this is the only reason. The upgrade prices are the same for PC users. If it were true that a good chunk of the price increase is due to Apple OS compatibility, that would imply the PC users are paying an unnecessarily high price just to keep the pricing structure the same for both platforms.
-
I didn't want to jump in on this because I'm not a Mac person, but I can't see how this is the only reason.
Because OS updates from MSFT aren't forcing you to upgrade your software...Lion is forcing users to have Lion compatible software only. So the existing products that work on 10.6.8 won't work on 10.7. If you want to use Lion (or buy a new computer) you don't have a choice...that is the Mac issue.
-
Because OS updates from MSFT aren't forcing you to upgrade your software...Lion is forcing users to have Lion compatible software only. So the existing products that work on 10.6.8 won't work on 10.7. If you want to use Lion (or buy a new computer) you don't have a choice...that is the Mac issue.
Thanks Jeff!
-
Because OS updates from MSFT aren't forcing you to upgrade your software...Lion is forcing users to have Lion compatible software only. So the existing products that work on 10.6.8 won't work on 10.7. If you want to use Lion (or buy a new computer) you don't have a choice...that is the Mac issue.
Jeff - as usual very clear and to the point; but I think the world of Windows is not totally benign. There are speed bumps for people up-grading from Windows XP to Windows 7-64 bit - less than for people up-grading from Vista, but Vista was not a popular OS for well-known reasons. The nice thing about Microsoft, however, is that they developed a compatibility application which users could download and implement. It reads everything on your computer and produces a lengthy report telling you what will work seamlessly in Win7 and what may be problematic. I haven't seen Apple being helpful to their clients in this way. In fact to the contrary, their cult of arrogance and insularity does the reverse. But I guess when a company nets 7 billion a quarter on phones and pads, why care about all the Mac customers who kept them in business all these years before these hay-days.
-
Jeff - as usual very clear and to the point; but I think the world of Windows is not totally benign. There are speed bumps for people up-grading from Windows XP to Windows 7-64 bit - less than for people up-grading from Vista, but Vista was not a popular OS for well-known reasons.\
Agreed...but the issue right now, with Lion looming any day now, is what Apple (and to a lessor extent X-Rite) is and isn't doing.
It's not really like the long buildup to Win 7 (and 64 bit) because migration from XP/Vista to Win 7 has taken a long time. Yes, getting 64 bit working took a while but there was always the ability to run apps in 32 bit till 64 bit was flushed out.
Apple is drawing a line in the sand with Lion...no Rosetta, not PPC code. All at once in one fell swoop. I don't fault X-rite...I've been involved in enough software dev to know at some point one has to draw the line on backwards compatibility. X-rite is looking forward with i1 Profiler, not backwards with Profile Maker and Profiler.
-
There are speed bumps for people up-grading from Windows XP to Windows 7-64 bit
The "speed bumps" as you call them are mainly due to due to 64bit OSs needing different hardware drivers. That has been an issue for all OSs that move to 64bit.
What's remarkable is just how many old bits of hardware can be made to run on the newer OS despite being no longer supported by their manufacturers. A photographic example of that might be the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro scanner; Minolta have been bought out and shut down by Sony several years ago, Sony won't support it, it was designed before 64bit systems were easily available so there's no original driver, but a third party driver IS available and the scanning software works fine on Win7, so the high investment in that product is still productive.
With respect to software, almost all can be made to run on W7 64, even some really old unsupported products.
-
The nice thing about Microsoft, however, is that they developed a compatibility application which users could download and implement. It reads everything on your computer and produces a lengthy report telling you what will work seamlessly in Win7 and what may be problematic. I haven't seen Apple being helpful to their clients in this way.
Apple has built in support for a similar process. Go to About This Mac->More Info->Software/Applications and it will show a "compatibility list" that includes among other information what is 64-bit or not.
In fact to the contrary, their cult of arrogance and insularity does the reverse. But I guess when a company nets 7 billion a quarter on phones and pads, why care about all the Mac customers who kept them in business all these years before these hay-days.
Not necessarily true. Among other things, Apple did some research, presumably silently, on how to proceed with 64-bit kernel for Snow Leopard and perhaps for Lion also. For instance check if you have the the file /Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.third_party_32b_kext_logger.plist on your Mac, which according to some online reports was used by Apple to spoof on users' systems to determine suitability for a 64-bit Kernel. Remember, a 64-bit Kernel is not the same as support for 64-bit applications or a "64-bit OS". Snow Leopard can run 64-bit applications but its Kernel for many Mac machines defaults to 32 bits. Because, recent 32-bit Mac OS X kernels can do 64-bit applications, so the issue of 64-bit applications is not a concern here. To check if you are really running a 64-bit kernel, go to About this Mac->More Info->Software and see what does the entry "64-bit Kernel and Extensions" say. One way to boot into a 64-bit kernel on certain Mac models is to hold "6" and "4" during booting.
Joofa
-
Apple has built in support for a similar process. Go to About This Mac->More Info->Software/Applications and it will show a "compatibility list" that includes among other information what is 64-bit or not.
Not necessarily true. Among other things, Apple did some research, presumably silently, on how to proceed with 64-bit kernel for Snow Leopard and perhaps for Lion also. For instance check if you have the the file /Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.third_party_32b_kext_logger.plist on your Mac, which according to some online reports was used by Apple to spoof on users' systems to determine suitability for a 64-bit Kernel. Remember, a 64-bit Kernel is not the same as support for 64-bit applications or a "64-bit OS". Snow Leopard can run 64-bit applications but its Kernel for many Mac machines defaults to 32 bits. Because, recent 32-bit Mac OS X kernels can do 64-bit applications, so the issue of 64-bit applications is not a concern here. To check if you are really running a 64-bit kernel, go to About this Mac->More Info->Software and see what does the entry "64-bit Kernel and Extensions" say. One way to boot into a 64-bit kernel on certain Mac models is to hold "6" and "4" during booting.
Joofa
Re your first para - my MacBook Pro does not have this information at all (2010 model with Snow Leopard). I can't check my desktop just now, but I shall.)
Re your second para - very interesting. 64-bit Kernel says "No". I'll probably try your "6 and 4" suggestion and see whether it works on this computer.
-
Hi all,
Wow, I am in awe that such names as Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe amongst others (you guys ROCK) have responded to this thread. Ultimately this issue is about the pricing structure of X-Rite's Upgrades and what you get with them. Since this thread started, I posted links to it on XRite's Face Book site ( http://www.facebook.com/xritephoto ) and on my Face Book Business site ( http://www.facebook.com/DigitalDunesPhoto ). Xrite is listening. I was contacted today from Brenda K. Hipsher, she can be Followed on Twitter @xritephoto or you can Read her blog at
http://blog.xritephoto.com/. She is the X-Rite Coloratti Field Manager, X-Rite Photo Blog Manager, and has been in the Photo industry since 1978. Working for MAC Group since 1993.
Surprised that XRite actually wanted my opinion on this issue and wanted to clear up some issues.... I took her call. Thank You Brenda. She explained a lot to me and assured me that xrite is listening.
Here is the link to the i1Profiler upgrades. See the chart in the middle.
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1472&catid=109&action=overview
And here is the link to the Lion compatibility chart.
http://www.xritephoto.com/lion
Both upgrades, A & B, come with CMYK and RGB management.... the different pricing between the two depend on what the customer originally purchased. Both upgrades get the user to the current i1 Publish, which works with Lion.
We also discussed that the i1 Beamer ( for projector calibration only ) is not available.... and that B&H who has it listed for 945.00 is no longer available and needs to be taken down to end some of the confusion.... the rest of the confusion is when GreyTag MacBeth married Xrite and different products from both companies merged.... some dropped or discontinued, some new ones arrived, and then the way you could purchase them with varying degrees of activation attached to the Spectrophotometer bundled in various kits.... makes it very hard for the end user (me) to figure out what upgrade I even needed.... turns out I need the 499.00 one.
We discussed pricing for the up-grades and what i felt would be a fair price for the up-grades, I told her that in the beginning of this thread, I was willing to pay 150.00 to 200.00 for upgrade A, but after listening to Andrew and Jeff and others, that I'd be willing to pay around 250.00 for the product upgrade. She thanked me and we spoke some more about other things like marketing their product to Camera Clubs, and social networking campaigns.
End result: XRITE is listening and hearing about their pricing model and the upgrade fees. They need to hear more.... so I pose her question to all of you, "What would you pay for the up-grade you need?"
-
I'd be willing to pay $250 for Upgrade A only if they allow for the same type of OBA compensation using an i1Pro as in i1Match and PM Pro, and if they include a scanner capability like i1Match. I'd like the same full functionality including the digital camera profiling, but I'll admit there is some question as to how useful that part may be.
And I'd still want a full featured profile editor if I decide I don't want to use their optimization method.
-
I'd be willing to pay $250 for Upgrade A only if they allow for the same type of OBA compensation using an i1Pro as in i1Match and PM Pro...
And I'd still want a full featured profile editor if I decide I don't want to use their optimization method.
What makes you think you need either?
Would you pay a bit more for the scanner module inside PMP?
-
I'd be willing to pay $250 for Upgrade A only if they allow for the same type of OBA compensation using an i1Pro as in i1Match and PM Pro, and if they include a scanner capability like i1Match. I'd like the same full functionality including the digital camera profiling, but I'll admit there is some question as to how useful that part may be.
And I'd still want a full featured profile editor if I decide I don't want to use their optimization method.
Tony...... I believe the question was "what would you be willing to pay for your upgrade" not what should be added to the up-grade. XRite is not going to change what they are offering, but may consider a price adjustment based upon todays economy and professionals who use and promote XRite based upon info they gather here and elsewhere.... so again to all of you..... What would you be willing to pay for your upgrade?
-
Wow, I am in awe that such names as Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe amongst others (you guys ROCK) have responded to this thread.
To be clear, my additions to the thread revolve around the forced migration of PPC apps and the elimination of Rosetta. I don't have a strong opinion about the relative value of the X-rite upgrade path. I use ProfileMaker and Profiler...and aside from getting the i1 Profiler update, my opinion of i1 Profiler is still out. The current version is a bit buggy and lacks some of the features of previous apps, but depending on what you are using currently I don't think the upgrades as priced are really a bad value. It all depends on what it's worth to you. Buy or don't buy based of it's value to you. But don't attribute my posting as agreeing with you.
-
Tony...... I believe the question was "what would you be willing to pay for your upgrade" not what should be added to the up-grade.
You're right Curt. My rant mode got ahead of my brain cells. :) Well, I think I could be convinced to go for something in the $200-250 range for Upgrade A. I'd have more incentive at the lower end of that price range of course. Some of us are just dedicated enthusiats.
-
What makes you think you need either?
Because I admit I'm not an expert in getting the best out of a straight profiling method. Not in all the time I've been doing this, back to the days of Colorvision Profiler Plus software. It seems I always need a good tool on the back end to hammer out the imperfections in a profile editor. I've actually gotten pretty good at that part of it. The irony is not lost on me. :-[
Would you pay a bit more for the scanner module inside PMP?
Yes, I think I would.
-
To be clear, my additions to the thread revolve around the forced migration of PPC apps and the elimination of Rosetta. I don't have a strong opinion about the relative value of the X-rite upgrade path. I use ProfileMaker and Profiler...and aside from getting the i1 Profiler update, my opinion of i1 Profiler is still out. The current version is a bit buggy and lacks some of the features of previous apps, but depending on what you are using currently I don't think the upgrades as priced are really a bad value. It all depends on what it's worth to you. Buy or don't buy based of it's value to you. But don't attribute my posting as agreeing with you.
Jeff, sorry if you felt that I was "piggy backing" and using you name to gain acceptance towards a better pricing model at XRite's upgrade policy...... I was merely trying to say that I was in awe that both you and Andrew responded to some of my posts..... A Newbie...... No harm and piggy backing meant. Sorry.
"Buy or don't buy based of it's value to you"
I was thinking that it was of value to all professionals...... some of us are at the top of the food chain.... like Apple, Adobe, XRite,Canon, Nikon.... some close to the top who help develop this stuff... (like yourself) and Andrew (BTW Brenda at XRite spoke very highly of you), next in the food chain is is large labs and print houses, then towards the bottom (where I reside) is the very small one man operations that rely on everyone above them to get it right..... for 5 years I have followed you and others and modeled my reputation based upon your knowledge and insight to professional photography, Adobe, XRite, and various other professional softwares and devises. Thank You for all you have done and continue to do. However I believe that if the small business can't afford these very large upgrade prices, that we will go away and find other ways to make a living.... which in turn will take away business from the print houses which will then have less revenue to purchase upgrades etc.etc. So maybe the big picture is that it has value to all us... From the top down!
-
Because I admit I'm not an expert in getting the best out of a straight profiling method. Not in all the time I've been doing this, back to the days of Colorvision Profiler Plus software. It seems I always need a good tool on the back end to hammer out the imperfections in a profile editor. I've actually gotten pretty good at that part of it. The irony is not lost on me. :-[
Yes, I think I would.
No you don’t. You don’t want to either. This ain’t Colorvision Profiler Plus software!
-
I cannot contest your expertise on these matters Andrew. Since I'm near the bottom of the food chain I'm not sure when I'll get the chance to learn what something like i1Profiler can do for me.
-
What would you be willing to pay for your upgrade?
The problem here is that you're asking the wrong question. The "upgrade" isn't really an upgrade to an existing package, but it's the chance to buy into a different type of more advanced product at reduced price.
X-Rite have 'rationalised' their product range, and as a result have dropped their budget package i1Match, their premium products PMP & Monoco Profiler have also been dropped. (BTW this should have happen a year ago, but their new software has been delayed many times).
When this has happened to other products, customers have often been stuck with old products that aren't supported and cease working as OS upgrades etc aren't supported. Users often have to look elsewhere for similar products and have start again to buy things at full price.
X-Rite could just said "sorry guys, that old Gretag MacBeth product is dead now" and you'd have had to buy something new that would work. Instead you've been offered the chance to get a much better specified product for a significantly reduced fee. Some people might say it's generous offer.
There's a lot wrong with X-Rite's products and marketing, but I don't believe this issue is nearly as bad as you seem to be making it out.
-
... then towards the bottom (where I reside) is the very small one man operations that rely on everyone above them to get it right..... However I believe that if the small business can't afford these very large upgrade prices, that we will go away and find other ways to make a living....
I think any respectable small business would be able to afford at least $1500 to buy equipment that would assist them in getting their job done better if they can justify the results and outcomes (ie, better prints, better colour matching, etc). I know freelancers who have spent easily twice this amount on Adobe software subscriptions alone, yet they seem to be able to afford this with their freelance work and have little to show at the end of their subscription period (ie, they're certainly not able to keep using the last version they subscribed to).
If we look at costs of the upgrades & new purchases vs what it used to cost for some of the features $1500 is reasonable. ProfileMaker Pro with CMYK + 4 colour channel profiling used to cost somewhere in the vicinity (from memory) of at least $8000 - $12000 originally. i1XT used to be about $2500+ before it dropped to about $1300 once i1XTreme came out. I don't think a ~$425 upgrade is that unreasonable given the increase in features over i1 Match. Perhaps a cheaper upgrade to say, i1Photo Pro (with just RGB profiling) for half that would be a good compromise (and probably remove the i1 Basic package altogether, or move it to be just i1 Display Pro - you should be able to do RGB printer profiling out of the box like in i1 Photo Pro if the hardware supports it).
From a customer point of view if I'm going to a print facility they had better know their stuff about colour management, particularly as consumables cost quite a bit (particularly as in the end, I'm the one paying for them). If they're skimping on buying upgrades for what is relatively low cost in the grand scheme of things, how much more are they skimping on? It's quite interesting reading to browse photographer horror stories (particularly wedding photographers) where someone with a prosumer DSLR thinks they can outperform a top rated photographer and argue that they should do a shoot for next to nothing. People seem to lose track of the fact that real skills and experience are worth their value - hardware, software and equipment generally are expendable items and have short (if unlucky; long if you purchase prudently) lifespans.
In any case for most small businesses if they have a clear case for doing something, they will find a way to afford it (eventually - it can take them a while to get around to it!). It takes a while to get over the scrooge mentality but usually once they can see a clear cost/benefit from their purchases the decision is quite easily made. From my point of view as a hobbyist, I've valued the journey of learning how to handle colour management more than the costs of buying hardware or wasting paper making profiles. If I need to move on, I can simple on-sell the hardware; the knowledge I learnt I get to keep for far longer.
-
...I don't believe this issue is nearly as bad as you seem to be making it out.
Agreed! Let's move on...
-
Also worth noting that not only X-Rite are having problems with this new Mac OS:-
Adobe
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/905/cpsid_90508.html
Canon
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11663-11779
Nikon
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11663-11770
What would worry me if I was completely tied into a Mac was why companies of this size haven't been able to test compatibility issues before the OS has been released.
-
What would worry me if I was completely tied into a Mac was why companies of this size haven't been able to test compatibility issues before the OS has been released.
They've all tested prior to release, they just haven't released compatible updates at the same time as the release. Apple's testing cycle *is* pretty short. FWIW, I saw Lion compatible updates come out from several vendors prior to Loin's release.
BTW, Canon's iPF large format printer group tells me that they are having excellent results with Lion with the existing drivers and PS plug-ins. Only a few things are broken. "Fast Graphic Process", for example, should not be checked under Lion and the color controls shouldn't be used. They will release new x300 drivers in August that officially support Lion and will fix these relatively small issues.
-
They've all tested prior to release,
That's not what they say though. Canon use the expression "Has begun testing................Once testing is complete", Nikon say "the company plans to test "
They will release new x300 drivers in August that officially support Lion and will fix these relatively small issues.
Why does it take three months if they've been able to work with the OS upgrade before release ?
Sorry but this looks like they've been dropped in it by Apple not allowing enough time for manufacturers to keep up and support/update their products.
-
That's not what they say though. Canon use the expression "Has begun testing................Once testing is complete"
I know otherwise and can tell you that the 'official marketing speak' is conservative and quite different from what the engineers doing the actual testing say. They've tested, their got their to-do list and are working on it. Things at big corporations take longer then one person software companies.
Why does it take three months if they've been able to work with the OS upgrade before release ?
Three months? August is next month. 10 days away even. Modifying, testing, providing documentations for and releasing 100+MB drivers globally in a jagillion languages takes more than a month.
Sorry but this looks like they've been dropped in it by Apple not allowing enough time for manufacturers to keep up and support/update their products.
If a 3rd party doesn't update their software quickly enough you'll blame Apple for that? Apple should hold off until every last company has caught up to speed? Everyone has their own agenda and timeline - including us users. Wait about a month before upgrading to Lion, then everything will likely be ready. Not a big deal.
-
Apple has built in support for a similar process. Go to About This Mac->More Info->Software/Applications and it will show a "compatibility list" that includes among other information what is 64-bit or not.
Re your first para - my MacBook Pro does not have this information at all (2010 model with Snow Leopard). I can't check my desktop just now, but I shall.)
Mark, I'm sure your MacBook Pro does have it: it's been around, I think, since the start of OS X.
Under the apple menu, select "About this Mac". When the dialog appears, click "More Info..." and the System Profiler application will launch (or you could launch the application directly: it's in the Utilities folder).
Then click on Applications (under Software) in the list on the left and wait for a while.
Jeremy
-
Yes, thanks.
-
Why should they be upset with Apple?
Apple provided a way for software companies to bring their software up to speed with the latest technologies while still having a working set of code. This way the third party software companies could keep they customers happy. That was 6 years ago.
In essence there has been six years in which to re-write the i1 software to make it fully cocoa and 64 bit compliant, all the while there could have been incremental updates for a minimal charge to cover the cost of development. That is how every other company does it.
In this case the upgrade fee is deemed exorbitant by the user base. Vote with your wallet and move to a different product but to blame Apple is silly.
-
All of you have been discussing many of the high end X-Rite systems and software. Let's talk about the low end. If you go out and by an Eye-One Display 2, it comes with Power PC software today. Apple has not released a Power PC based system in more than five years. Rosetta was a system released to support legacy software. Way to go Apple. You have supplied this support for more than five years. Apple did its part. When I buy a new product, I expect it to come with software that is current with current OS software. In the Apple case all new software should be Intel, 64 bit, and Coco based. The Eye-One Display 2 is more than five years behind. Now let's compare this to other software. I use "SuperDuper" for backup on my Mac. It sells for $27.95. I have had it for many years. It works very well. I have received more than five updates over the years at no cost. If ShirtPocket can support their software properly, why can't X-Rite??? X-Rite says they are going to send me an email when they get around to updating this software and they are going to charge me for it. This is very, very POOR support. I am going to remember this when I go to buy any color management software in the future.
Ray Maxwell
-
If you go out and by an Eye-One Display 2, it comes with Power PC software today.
First of all, it's a discontinued product. Secondly, I have to snicker at anyone who would have bought such an old product in the last few years considering there were such better options - plenty of us have been discouraging sales of that product for a variety of reasons. Thirdly, if you had bought an XRite product in the last few months you'd be eligible for a free upgrade. Fourthly, on the low end, the Huey and ColorMunki are both Lion compatible.
XRite has Lion compatible, modern code software for all of their devices. They aren't dropping support. Even long discontinued products like the Pulse, DTP94, SpectroScan, Sphere, etc are supported with XRite's free ColorPort utility. Yes, some who bought products a while back will have to pay for an upgrade to continue profiling capabilities, but those users will gain new features and quality with it.
-
First of all, it's a discontinued product. Secondly, I have to snicker at anyone who would have bought such an old product in the last few years considering there were such better options - plenty of us have been discouraging sales of that product for a variety of reasons. Thirdly, if you had bought an XRite product in the last few months you'd be eligible for a free upgrade. Fourthly, on the low end, the Huey and ColorMunki are both Lion compatible.
XRite has Lion compatible, modern code software for all of their devices. They aren't dropping support. Even long discontinued products like the Pulse, DTP94, SpectroScan, Sphere, etc are supported with XRite's free ColorPort utility. Yes, some who bought products a while back will have to pay for an upgrade to continue profiling capabilities, but those users will gain new features and quality with it.
Hi Scott,
You can snicker about people buying an Eye 1 Display 2 because it is an "old" product, but NEC bundles TODAY their customized version of this device for profiling their latest state-of-the-art PA series displays. I haven't heard yet whether my NEC colorimeter will work with Lion. I suppose it is up to NEC to make sure of that should they chose to do so, but as I say, narry a peep from them.
Next on Pulse - yes - the device is supported with ColorPort, but neither the Pulse nor ColorPort can generate a profile. For that, on Snow Leopard I can still generate a profile using the Elite software that came with the device. It is vintage 2005, needs Rosetta and is therefore gone with Lion. So, my options, to continue using this device, are to buy i1Profiler for 500 bucks, or keep on tap my old Windows XP laptop on which this software still runs fine. We know that i1Profiler will generate a slightly better profile than will Elite - but the differences don't turn the world upside-down. So were I to upgrade to Lion one of these days (TBD), I'll then have what I consider a marginal decision to make about spending the next 500 for a very slight improvement of the warm-tone gamut.
Small increments of progress cost us chunks of money. As I've said before, upgrade when necessary but don't necessarily upgrade.
-
I suppose it is up to NEC to make sure of that should they chose to do so, but as I say, narry a peep from them.
The most recent version of Spectraview II software runs under Lion...it shouldn't be an issue with the hardware, just PPC software that requires Rosetta.
-
The most recent version of Spectraview II software runs under Lion...it shouldn't be an issue with the hardware, just PPC software that requires Rosetta.
And BasicColor is now updated to run on Lion also, but doesn't the colorimeter need an updated "framework"?
-
....but doesn't the colorimeter need an updated "framework"?
Not that I'm aware of. The main issue is Rosetta...(or lack there of).
BTW, it seems Apple didn't extend their license of the Rosetta software from Transitive Inc. which is why it's not in Lion (as far as I know, there's no technical reason why Lion can't support Rosetta–I could be wrong). So it seems to have been a financial reason Apple ceased Rosetta support.
-
So could someone else license Rosetta and make it a download like it was with SL? Just a thought.
-
So could someone else license Rosetta and make it a download like it was with SL? Just a thought.
May be possible since Rosetta seems to be a separate entity from Snow Leopard kernel. Though you can see reference to Rosetta in the kernel, which might have been removed in Lion kernel.
-
You can snicker about people buying an Eye 1 Display 2 because it is an "old" product, but NEC bundles TODAY their customized version of this device for profiling their latest state-of-the-art PA series displays. I haven't heard yet whether my NEC colorimeter will work with Lion. I suppose it is up to NEC to make sure of that should they chose to do so, but as I say, narry a peep from them.
Buying into NEC's system is totally different than XRite's EyeOneDisplay2 system. Not only is NEC's device different (it has different filters) the software is fantastic and Lion friendly. NEC system is great, although I do worry about the long term stability of that device.
So, my options, to continue using this device, are to buy i1Profiler for 500 bucks, or keep on tap my old Windows XP laptop on which this software still runs fine.
Right. Hey, it's a 6 year old device that you can still use. $500 for a newer, pro-grade profiling software upgrade isn't bad at all, although I see your perspective. Thus is life. Another option is to continue making your own measurements in CP and send the measurement data to someone for quick profile generation in i1Profiler.
-
So it seems to have been a financial reason Apple ceased Rosetta support.
They have more money than _________. My feeling is that they're leaving Rosetta out on principle. They want to protect the OS X "experience" and encourage an ecosystem of updated applications that take full advantage of the latest technology. They want to experience to be sexy and that sometimes means making hard decisions and moving forward.
Speaking of which, will somebody please re-write ColorLab, ColorShop X, ToolCrib and GamutWorks? :-]
-
I'm biased as I'm an industry insider, I guess.
However, I would like to say that Xrite make some very good instruments, and they make software which happens to use these instruments to measure stuff.
Other firms eg. Barbieri also make very good instruments and no software, and other firms eg. Basiccolor and ColorEyes make very good software and no instruments!
And there is also some very good *free* open-source profiling software (Argyll).
So if you dislike Xrite's support or licensing or upgrade policy, or even their software functionality, you can use Xrite's very good instruments with third party software at a variety of pricepoints.
HINT: Xrite will be very happy to sell you their instruments, even if you choose not to use their software.
Edmund
-
They have more money than _________. My feeling is that they're leaving Rosetta out on principle. They want to protect the OS X "experience" and encourage an ecosystem of updated applications that take full advantage of the latest technology. They want to experience to be sexy and that sometimes means making hard decisions and moving forward.
Speaking of which, will somebody please re-write ColorLab, ColorShop X, ToolCrib and GamutWorks? :-]
Actually it's not so much principle but where Apple is going as a company. Desktop computers are the second smallest revenue component from a hardware perspective (as per their most current qtr report that came out last week). The only reason they are not at the bottom is because iPod sales are crashing because of smart phones (whether iPhone or Android it doesn't matter since both are replacing the iPod in terms of what it was designed to do in the same way the iPod eliminated the Sony Walkman and Discman). Apple wants to insure cross compatibility with the iPad (fastest growing segment of the business and second only to the iPhone in terms of revenues). The company won't support anything that they believe to be superfluous to that goal and future OS updates will continue to reflect that. I don't think these things are "hard decisions" at all. If a piece of software is not needed in their minds, bingo it gets eliminated. Their bigger problem going forward is to insure content royalties for their devices increase dramatically since at some point the hardware market becomes saturated (unless they make a decision to go after corporate business which they have not been inclined to do).
-
Not only is NEC's device different (it has different filters) the software is fantastic and Lion friendly. NEC system is great, although I do worry about the long term stability of that device.
NEC's software makes matrix profiles. Those who want LUT profiles generated from many more data points need another application. As for the LT stability of the device, I understand this depends largely on the materials with which the filters are made. If they are plastic, cause for concern. If they are glass, better prospects. I don't know how they are made. I also understand the DTP-94 (Optix XR) has glass filters, whereas the i1Display 2 does not.
-
Speaking of which, will somebody please re-write ColorLab, ColorShop X, ToolCrib and GamutWorks? :-]
I would very much like to see this happen too.
-
Xrite make some very good instruments, and they make software which happens to use these instruments to measure stuff.
Basiccolor and ColorEyes make very good software and no instruments!
Edmund
XRite also makes some pretty iffy instruments. That's been documented.
BasicColor now provides the DISCUS colorimeter - expensive device but from what I hear - top notch.
Argyll is there and I understand excellent - for those who have the time, ability and patience to use it.
-
The [Apple] company won't support anything that they believe to be superfluous to that goal and future OS updates will continue to reflect that. I don't think these things are "hard decisions" at all. If a piece of software is not needed in their minds, bingo it gets eliminated.
Except when the AppleTV is concerned. Apparently it's still a "hobby". It's clear Apple is being a bit hypocritical on some things, but it is understandable they want to move on from PowerPC, just like 68K in order to focus on their iOS platform instead. I think the future will be probably getting SheepShaver or MOL/MOM working in emulation environments to support PowerPC/68K as a paid-for supported product by 3rd parties if such supported is required. Either that or VMware/Parallels with Windows XP would work as well if necessary.
-
NEC's software makes matrix profiles. Those who want LUT profiles generated from many more data points need another application.
We’ve been down this rabbit hole before. IF NEC needed to make a LUT profile, they certainly could and this urban legend propagated that somehow, a Matrix profile built for such a system is inferior has never been empirically demonstrated, and until then is simply a flat earth theory. Now maybe the LUT profile placebo effect makes you feel better about your calibration. But other than yourself and I think Richard Wagner, perhaps one or two others who haven’t provided any evidence of the superiority or need for LUT profile in SpectraView, the thousands of SpectraView customers seem to be quite happy with the results of their pithy Matrix profile.
-
We’ve been down this rabbit hole before. IF NEC needed to make a LUT profile, they certainly could and this urban legend propagated that somehow, a Matrix profile built for such a system is inferior has never been empirically demonstrated, and until then is simply a flat earth theory. Now maybe the LUT profile placebo effect makes you feel better about your calibration. But other than yourself and I think Richard Wagner, perhaps one or two others who haven’t provided any evidence of the superiority or need for LUT profile in SpectraView, the thousands of SpectraView customers seem to be quite happy with the results of their pithy Matrix profile.
Andrew, it's not a rabbit hole and it's not flat earth theory. After making a profile with Spectraview and testing it with Patchtool I was not completely satisfied so I made another one with BasicColor (using the NEC colorimeter), ran that one through Patchtool and the dE values were lower. So a sample of one empirically demonstrated to me. Before doing this, I also had evidence that there is some non-linearity in the response of that display. Matrix profiles are fine when the display response is perfectly linear - according to NEC. But when it isn't, the LUT profile is preferred. Unless those thousands of Spectraview customers you are talking about have taken the trouble to do non-circular testing of their profiles and compared results of the two types of profiles for the same display using the same software, they could remain perfectly happy with what they have, or their displays are perfectly linear. Speculation about the satisfaction of thousands of consumers is completely and totally irrelevant to my experience and findings, and has no scientific basis. It's entirely possible that either their displays are perfectly linear or they don't know what they don't know.
-
After making a profile with Spectraview and testing it with Patchtool I was not completely satisfied so I made another one with BasicColor (using the NEC colorimeter), ran that one through Patchtool and the dE values were lower.
So without even asking about the specifics of the patches measured, the lower dE is solely due to the profile type, that’s your analysis? Both software products sent exactly the same color values to the instrument and used the same math to control the panel, the sole difference here in the lower dE is the profile type? You sure?
And your explanation as to why NEC is incapable or refuses to build a LUT profile is?
-
So without even asking about the specifics of the patches measured, the lower dE is solely due to the profile type, that’s your analysis? Both software products sent exactly the same color values to the instrument and used the same math to control the panel, the sole difference here in the lower dE is the profile type? You sure?
And your explanation as to why NEC is incapable or refuses to build a LUT profile is?
Yes of course - if you use the same patches - a good representative sample - different from the verification routine of the profiling software itself so we aren't involved in self-fulfilling prophecies - for testing both profiles and the dE values come out differently, it is fair to conclude on which profile is better. This is a repeatable, scientific procedure. I don't know what you mean by the "specifics of the patches being measured" - you should ask Danny Pascale about that. Patchtool has a number of bespoke patch sets specifically prepared for these purposes. And yes, as for the results, I can read a dE number thrown-up by the results panel of the testing application. I can even read two such numbers and compare them. So am I SURE? - yes I am SURE.
I have discussed the issue extensively with NEC. Their response is that their PA series displays are linear and linear displays don't need LUT profiles - the nine points of a matrix profile are perfectly sufficient. If their premise were correct their argument would be correct.
-
Yes of course - if you use the same patches - a good representative sample - different from the verification routine of the profiling software itself so we aren't involved in self-fulfilling prophecies - for testing both profiles and the dE values come out differently, it is fair to conclude on which profile is better.
Hold on skipper. You used NEC and BasICColor right? You presumably set the same targets for calibration right? How else did you build the two profiles? Now you KNOW that both products sent the same number of color patches to the display using the same colors within color space to build the profile? That the only differences here in terms of your ‘results’ are one profile was LUT and the other was Matrix?
I have discussed the issue extensively with NEC. Their response is that their PA series displays are linear and linear displays don't need LUT profiles - the nine points of a matrix profile are perfectly sufficient. If their premise were correct their argument would be correct.
So how is their premise wrong?
-
Hold on skipper. You used NEC and BasICColor right? You presumably set the same targets for calibration right? How else did you build the two profiles? Now you KNOW that both products sent the same number of color patches to the display using the same colors within color space to build the profile? That the only differences here in terms of your ‘results’ are one profile was LUT and the other was Matrix?
So how is their premise wrong?
I'm not "skipper".
No - each application has its own patch set for building the profiles. I used the same patch set in PatchTool for testing the profiles. So if you want to argue that BasicColor is a better application for building profiles than Spectraview for reasons other than the difference in profile type, that proposition can be tested by asking BasicColor to make a matrix profile (if my memory serves me correctly I believe it can - I'm not near the software to check this) followed by a LUT profile and testing the pair through PatchTool. I'm not in a position to do that just now, but early next month I will be. If I have time, I'll try it and let you know the outcome. But I think it stands to reason that when dealing with non-linear situations, a profile calculated from several hundred data points is highly likely to be more accurate than one calculated from nine data points.
The linearity premise is incorrect.
-
No - each application has its own patch set for building the profiles.
So that had no effect on the profile?
So if you want to argue that BasicColor is a better application for building profiles than Spectraview for reasons other than the difference in profile type, that proposition can be tested by asking BasicColor to make a matrix profile
I’m not as yet arguing anything other than you analysis that two profiles tested by a third product (Patchtool) resulting in a lower dE is solely due to the differences between LUT and Matrix!
Even if you build a Matrix profile in BasICColor and it produces a ‘better’ report in PatchTool, that would not prove that the better results from the LUT profile were due to it being a LUT (the test would actually imply the opposite). It might prove that with the patches sent to the display to build either or both profiles, or the math, or how the product controls the panel is better. And that’s been my point since day 1! No one has proven as yet that a LUT profile is better than a Matrix profile all things being equal (which for good science all things DO need to be equal and you’ve got too many variables to say with any certainty its the profile structure).
But I think it stands to reason that when dealing with non-linear situations, a profile calculated from several hundred data points is highly likely to be more accurate than one calculated from nine data points.The linearity premise is incorrect.
IT doesn’t stand to reason. Because you haven’t provided the proper testing to make it a reasonable analysis of the process. I’m not sure you can. Each product provides too many differences in how it calibrates and then builds a profile from the data it sends to the instrument that I seriously doubt you can prove that the lower dE is solely due to the structure of a profile. But yet, that’s been your take a for a long time.
IF you want to say, “I’ve used as similar settings between two dissimilar software products to calibrate and build a profile, and the profile from product A in PatchTool provides a lower dE report” then fine. To suggest the reason is due to the structure of the profile is unproven. Based on the number of different software products I’ve tested over the years, on the same display using the same instrument, its not at all surprising to find differences in quality (assuming you believe a test like that in PatchTool is the sole criteria of quality). Saying its because the display faced north instead of south is just silly stuff. Saying the results are better because one profile was LUT and the other was Matrix is as silly until all other variables that affect the process are eliminated and you’re far from that.
Next question. You presumably set both software products for the same target calibration targets? Did they produce identical results (measured or otherwise)? I’d think not. Is one ‘more right’ than the other?
-
Even if you build a Matrix profile in BasICColor and it produces a ‘better’ report in PatchTool, that would not prove that the better results from the LUT profile were due to it being a LUT (the test would actually imply the opposite). It might prove that with the patches sent to the display to build either or both profiles, or the math, or how the product controls the panel is better. And that’s been my point since day 1! No one has proven as yet that a LUT profile is better than a Matrix profile all things being equal (which for good science all things DO need to be equal and you’ve got too many variables to say with any certainty its the profile structure).
"All things being equal"....isn't this a bit of a straw man argument? It's highly likely that a different patch set will be used for a matrix vs. LUT profile....and both profiles would CERTAINLY use different math during construction of the profile....so you could never have a situation where "all things are equal" so your argument would be rather self-fulfilling. I'm sure you're aware that it would be extremely difficult to get two different display applications to use the same device value patch set....I personally only know of a few that can be coaxed to do that..even then, it's a bit of an under-the-hood/hack kind of exercise.
If the discussion was framed more in terms of....basiCColor Display builds a better LUT profile compared to NEC's matrix profile....then Mark's analysis is valid. Even better....if basICColor built a superior matrix profile compared to NEC's matrix profile, at the very least you could say that NEC's own software for their displays is inadequate.
I'd prefer to think it terms of....."all things being equal, a LUT profile will be no WORSE than a matrix profile...but a matrix profile is MORE likely to be worse than a LUT profile...all things being equal of course"....or something like that. :)
Regards,
Terry
-
"All things being equal"....isn't this a bit of a straw man argument?
Only for someone who has a theory he can’t prove. If the sole reason the LUT profile is superior is because its a LUT profile, proof its not other measured data, math etc in the process creating the profile is required.
It's highly likely that a different patch set will be used for a matrix vs. LUT profile....
You think that taking a smaller number of patches spread in a narrower area of color space would not have an effect over a product that sampled either a larger sample or a sample of colors in a wider area of color space? Its the LUT, its not the patches, that’s Marks assumption.
and both profiles would CERTAINLY use different math during construction of the profile....
Can’t be the patches or the math, its the structure of the profile. That’s Mark’s take.
so you could never have a situation where "all things are equal" so your argument would be rather self-fulfilling. I
No, it just makes Marks assumptions about the profile far more difficult to prove. One questions that with all these differences, how one came to the conclusion its solely the profile structure. It makes accepting the premise so much more difficult. And yet, its been said its not a flat earth theory. Yet its Mark’s theory to explain and prove. I don’t have to disprove it, that’s not how the science works. Mark have to prove the theory, now you are saying that difficult to do. I don’t disagree. Does’t change the facts (or lack thereof).
I'm sure you're aware that it would be extremely difficult to get two different display applications to use the same device value patch set....
I know people who could write the software to do this. Maybe you can’t. I can’t. But then again, there is this theory that keeps showing up here but there’s nothing to back it up.
If the discussion was framed more in terms of....basiCColor Display builds a better LUT profile compared to NEC's matrix profile....then Mark's analysis is valid.
That’s an easier theory to accept at this point. Personal experience suggests that is very possible. At least if we agree that sending X number of as yet, undefined patches through two profiles and analyzed by PatchTool is the only criteria of ‘a better profile’.
Even better....if basICColor built a superior matrix profile compared to NEC's matrix profile, at the very least you could say that NEC's own software for their displays is inadequate.
Well inadequate in terms of a dE value of as yet undefined colors in an undefined area of color space. But that is simply one data point. It tells us nothing about other aspects of calibration and profiling a display. For example, if I could produce a lower dE of defined patches at the expense of purity in other areas of the display from center (where the data is measured), would that be adequate? Or if I asked for a 300:1 contrast ratio but in order to get a lower dE of said patches, the actual calibration produced 400:1, would that be adequate?
The idea that a lower dE test points to the profile structure alone is so far nonsensical based on the process used to come to that conclusion. Now one has to ask, if the dE of product #1 is 2.9 and the other is 3.5, does that automatically make product #2 inadequate? Maybe.
I'd prefer to think it terms of....."all things being equal, a LUT profile will be no WORSE than a matrix profile...
The key part of the sentence is what isn’t happening in the analysis, all things being equal.
-
If one wanted to test this out, ArgyllCMS allows you to generate matrix and LUT profiles from the same patch set. I have prepared matrix profiles using both Spectraview and Argyll using the NEC Puck that comes with Spectraview. Obviously Spectraview is much easier to use but Argyll allows for greater configurability of the monitor. I'm of a mixed view on this since the time and effort needed to get Argyll working is considerable (and we had a discussion of this a month or so ago on the thread Ethan Hansen started). I've not done any kind of measuring to see which profile is "better" but that's something I do intend to look at.
-
If one wanted to test this out, ArgyllCMS allows you to generate matrix and LUT profiles from the same patch set.
That would be a very interesting test, but would provide no further evidence that NEC produces an inferior result than BasICColor (in terms of the one dE analysis) because NEC doesn’t write a LUT profile. It would tell us scientifically how LUT vs. Matrix profiles preform with ArgyllCMS.
-
That would be a very interesting test, but would provide no further evidence that NEC produces an inferior result than BasICColor (in terms of the one dE analysis) because NEC doesn’t write a LUT profile. It would tell us scientifically how LUT vs. Matrix profiles preform with ArgyllCMS.
Exactly right. The problem with any of the preceding discussion is the number of variables that would need to be controlled. I've done enough lab work in my time to know when to hold them and when to fold them. This is a case of the latter as once can get so preoccupied with numbers that you forget to go out and take pictures!
-
Andrew, I agree with you that to be dead-sure of a hypothesis one should neutralize all variables but one and test for that one. We've seen in this discussion that this would be very difficult to do. The furthest I can take it, when I'm in a position to do so, is to make both matrix and LUT profiles from the same software and measure the results. But if the measurement approach itself is not trustworthy, then there is no concrete answer to this issue and no point starting - again. But I'd be surprised. To avoid wasting my time, I'll do some further consulting on what BasicColor does and what PathcTool does before proceeding, Finally, I wonder why these LUT profiles were developed in the first place if these simple matrix profiles are no worse?
-
That would be a very interesting test, but would provide no further evidence that NEC produces an inferior result than BasICColor (in terms of the one dE analysis) because NEC doesn’t write a LUT profile. It would tell us scientifically how LUT vs. Matrix profiles preform with ArgyllCMS.
That's correct, but it does nail as many variables as possible and therefore provides additional useful insight, so I would encourage Alan to do this when he has the time and inclination!
-
Finally, I wonder why these LUT profiles were developed in the first place if these simple matrix profiles are no worse?
For one, basICColor is a product that is for sale for any display system. There are such systems that will benefit from such a profile. But not a display like a SpectraView or Eizo. Think a POS display purchased because it cost a buck ninety five.
-
Graeme Gill of ArgyllCMS - Dispcal has written some good observations on the differences between matrix and LUT profiling for displays and I do not think one should try to get more insight than already written down by Graeme.
Quote:
There are two basic choices of profile type for a display, a shaper/matrix profile, or a LUT based profile. They have different tradeoffs. A shaper/matrix profile will work well on a well behaved display, that is one that behaves in an additive color manner, will give very smooth looking results, and needs fewer test points to create. A LUT based profile on the other hand, will model any display behaviour more accurately, and can accommodate gamut mapping and different intent tables. Often it can show some unevenness and contouring in the results though.
End of quote.
http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Scenarios.html
and more extensive:
http://hoech.net/dispcalGUI/
The reason to include both LUT and Matrix in one profile (BTW display profiles can also carry the calibration data) is that applications differ on which one they use in their color management. To check what the CM uses you got an odd profiling choice in Dispcal where the red and green data are reversed in the matrix side of the LUT + matrix profile. So there is a minefield of variables out there if you want to compare the two methods.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
For one, basICColor is a product that is for sale for any display system. There are such systems that will benefit from such a profile. But not a display like a SpectraView or Eizo. Think a POS display purchased because it cost a buck ninety five.
From an email by Basiccolor I know that the Spectraview II software is identical with BasicColor's software (with a few minor adjustments).
-
From an email by Basiccolor I know that the Spectraview II software is identical with BasicColor's software (with a few minor adjustments).
Considering they are coded and designed by completely different entities, I find that difficult to believe.
-
Considering they are coded and designed by completely different entities, I find that difficult to believe.
I agree.
BasicColor provides a version of its software for the European PA Series, and that may be the meaning of the communication.
-
UPDATE: XRITE has listened and has introduced a rebate program. See it here: http://www.xritephoto.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=271 I'm really happy that XRITE has done this.... I believe it's a win win for all.
Thank You XRITE..... the coffee smells real good now! :)
-
UPDATE: XRITE has listened and has introduced a rebate program. See it here: http://www.xritephoto.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=271 I'm really happy that XRITE has done this.... I believe it's a win win for all.
Thank You XRITE..... the coffee smells real good now! :)
But it looks like the rebate is only good for US and Canada. >:(
Not any good on my side of the planet. :'(
Ronny
-
Too bad X-Rite isn't offering an instant rebate. If your snail mail gets lost, then X-Rite wins!
It seems like B&H isn't even aware there is one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/759155-REG/X_Rite_EOPROF_UPGA_i1Publish_Software_Upgrade_A.html
-
Andrew, I agree with you that to be dead-sure of a hypothesis one should neutralize all variables but one and test for that one. We've seen in this discussion that this would be very difficult to do. The furthest I can take it, when I'm in a position to do so, is to make both matrix and LUT profiles from the same software and measure the results. But if the measurement approach itself is not trustworthy, then there is no concrete answer to this issue and no point starting - again. But I'd be surprised. To avoid wasting my time, I'll do some further consulting on what BasicColor does and what PathcTool does before proceeding, Finally, I wonder why these LUT profiles were developed in the first place if these simple matrix profiles are no worse?
Adding something else to the mix:
Wouldn't it also matter whether the NEC PA series monitors and their color engine are more linear than the measurement probe? It seems possible to me that the typical probes people might use might end up having enough variance to make them end up making the LUT work out worse than the matrix even if a LUT from a $50,000 device might do a better job. Then again maybe not, but I wonder a little.
Another thing, using a matrix profile, I get 0-255 G,R,G,B color spreads with no banding on PA241W. I wonder if a LUT correction might be more prone to adding some bands. I suppose if it could control the monitor internally it might do ok. Using ColorEyesDisplay pro to post make a LUT-based correction makes banding (plus tinted shows since I have to use i1pro with CEDP since it doesn't use wide gamut compensation matrix for the NEC i1D2 puck or DPT94b and doesn't allow to train coloritmeters by spectros) but that doesn't answer how a a program that could control the internal tables would fair.
-
I quizzed X-Rite about the upgrade path/price and received the following answer - it may be of help to someone. (I use an i1Pro just for profiling my monitors and an Epson 3880)
Hi Carl,
I’m sorry to hear your unhappiness with this recent X-Rite offering. You do have a few no charge options that may solve your situation.
Your i1Pro will immediately function with i1Profiler for monitor profiling. You can download i1Profiler at no charge from our website and begin using it for monitor profiling should you wish to do this. The i1Profiler software will function properly on a Mac running Lion. Or you can continue to use i1Match until such time as you move to Lion. Here’s the link for downloading i1Publish Suite (which includes i1Profiler):
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1397&Action=support&SoftwareID=1085
In addition, your i1Pro will continue to function on any Mac running 10.6. You might continue to keep at least one Mac running 10.6, build your printer profiles there, and simply copy them over to all your Lion Macs. The ICC profile structure between 10.6 and 10.7 is very likely identical. This will do monitor profiling and monitor QA.
You might choose to run dual boot on your Lion Mac. This would allow you to boot in Lion for all of the times when you wish to use the new features in this OS, and then permit you to reboot the computer and come up in Snow Leopard for the times when you wish to build printer profiles only. Please keep in mind that you will be able to build monitor profiles in Lion with i1Profiler at no upgrade cost whatsoever.
It’s our hope at X-Rite that you will consider some of these possible options on how you can continue to use and benefit from the investment you have made in your i1Pro. We believe that once you have a chance to see how i1Profiler functions, you might come to believe that it represents a step forward in profiling software, and one that will be worth any additional investment you might make.
I hope that you have been satisfied with the performance of your i1Pro over the past years of ownership, and understand that we are making considerable efforts to support our installed user base going forward. Being able to use your i1Pro device on this newest iteration of the Mac OS is important to us, and I hope you will consider our suggestions.
Best regards,
Like so many, I was obviously disappointed to find I have to pay about half of the original purchase price to continue to have the same functionality with Lion.
Given that since purchase the software has to date been "bolt-on" Rosetta code, and also that the new software is written and now supplied with the identical i1Pro hardware it does seem a bit fresh to be charging previous users an additional £365 to £650 here in the UK for an "upgrade" (despite the kit being made in the EU we don't even have the poultry $150 rebate offered across the pond). Bearing in mind the original purchase price includes the hardware, I could appreciate something in the region of maybe a 10% software upgrade charge, but 50%? - I hope Adobe aren't getting any marketing ideas from X-Rite.
If you've spent £120 on an i1 Display you can have a free update.... but if you spend £1000 on an i1Pro you're stuffed - it's the same download but with the bits you need to profile your printer turned off. Nice.
I guess the X-Rite marketing logic is something along the lines of.... these customers have made a large investment in the our hardware, they won't go elsewhere so let's screw 'em!
Hey-ho... such is life.
-
I guess the X-Rite marketing logic is something along the lines of.... these customers have made a large investment in the our hardware, they won't go elsewhere so let's screw 'em!
I appreciate x-rite are a business, but would agree they do forget that loyal customers should not be screwed.
Adding to your above experience, I recently bought an iSis, and i1publish. No small investment. My i1Pro spectro allows the upgrade ('A') to i1publish so I took that option, installed the software, and now the i1 Spectro is surplus to my requirements - I don't use it to profile anything anymore. So I thought I would sell it and recoup a small amount of my x-rite investment costs.
No.
The $1200 i1 spectro apparently has to sit there for all eternity acting as a 'dongle'. It isn't just used to activate/validate to software, it has to be attached each time you use the software. Nearly every manufacturer out there dumped 'dongles' a long time ago, but x-rite persist in this archaic design. Surely once you have proven your ownership and past investment, that should be enough to qualify for upgrades, or for a free USB dongle. Not to x-rite - they make you keep the old product forever, plugged in to your computer, for as long as you want to use their software.
-
Adding to your above experience, I recently bought an iSis, and i1publish. No small investment. My i1Pro spectro allows the upgrade ('A') to i1publish so I took that option, installed the software, and now the i1 Spectro is surplus to my requirements - I don't use it to profile anything anymore.
The iSis sucks at ambient and spot measurement and don’t get me started on how difficult it is to hook to a display<g>. I think you’ll find, as I do, that having the i1Pro will be quite useful.
-
From an email by Basiccolor I know that the Spectraview II software is identical with BasicColor's software (with a few minor adjustments).
You are right and wrong. Spectraview II is a COMPLETELY different application. It is not written by the folks at BasICColor. There are no similarities whatsoever (well, other than the fact that they are both pieces of software for monitor profiling). The interfaces are different, and they way they respond to various instruments are different as well. So you are wrong there.
Here's where you are right... BasICColor Display and Spectraview Profiler (which again is not the same as Spectraview II which is what's sold in North America) are the same application. Spectraview Profiler is BasICColor Display. If it wasn't for the different splash screen when the app starts up I wouldn't know the difference.
Now, this argument about these two different versions is glossing over some rather important differences. Many of us (myself included) profile with a spectrophotometer. I use an Eye One Pro myself because of everything I have (two Spyder 3's, DTP 94, NEC modified i1Display 2 (2nd copy)) the Eye One Pro renders the most neutral profiles. Spectrophotometers of course have issues with shadows. I'm will to sacrifice a bit (I set my black point to 0.35 cd/m^2) of contrast and give up those super deep blacks, for a more neutral profile. I own SVII, BasICColor Display, and Spectraview Profiler. BCD/SVP does NOT do a very good job of handling an Eye One Pro compared to SVII. It's been my observation that SVII is using longer integration times when measuring shadows and therefor they're probably doing a much better job (at least this is what my eyes tell me) of averaging out some of the noise inherent in my Eye One Pro so given that, LUT or Matrix... doesn't matter. In my experience SVII produces a far superior profile when used in conjunction with an Eye One Pro.
FWIW, this observation about BasICColor Display's handling of the Eye One Pro and shadows holds true when compared to Color Eyes Display Pro as well. CEDP seems to have longer integration times when measuring the shadows and produces superior profiles when used with an Eye One Pro as a result (or at least that's my theory... either way BasICColor Display doesn't seem to play well with the Eye One Pro).
After hearing that Argyll now has support for the i1Display Pro, I placed my order from Chromix last night (I've been using Argyll to profile my non-NEC displays). It will be interesting to do a new comparison of SVII and SVP once both support the i1Display Pro.
Cheers, Joe
-
(I set my black point to 0.35 cd/m^2)
can I ask how you do this in SVII - I need to set mine similarly.
and you have Contrast Ratio at... ?
thanks
-
I have stumbled into this party late. But in the hope that some X-rite exec might be browsing this forum I'd like to add my voice to the little chorus of unhappiness.
The way I understand it - a €24 upgrade to Lion is going to cost around around €500 in a software upgrade. (Upgrade A - i1 Photo)
Of course there should be a fee, but €500 on top of the €1200 I originally paid for the device is a bit steep no?
It's just too much. Please correct me if I have got my facts wrong.
-
The way I understand it - a €24 upgrade to Lion is going to cost around around €500 in a software upgrade. (Upgrade A - i1 Photo)
Of course there should be a fee, but €500 on top of the €1200 I originally paid for the device is a bit steep no?
Why the requirement, the necessities, the demand, to spend €24 and upgrade to Lion? There’s something there that fixes problems you currently have in Snow Leopard? Or instead, it kind of screws up a lot of other currently well running applications? As a Mac user, I see nothing worth €24 to upgrade to Lion, let alone have lots of software I use die in the process.
If and when the time comes I have no option to upgrade to Lion, then I guess push comes to shove, I’ll have to deal with the ramifications. But I don’t see why most people have to spend a little money to end up sending more and lose valuable software in the process (Rosetta).
-
Why the requirement, the necessities, the demand, to spend €24 and upgrade to Lion?
I agree. There is nothing much in Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion) that compels me to upgrade immediately. Smart adopters are always wise to wait for at least a few point releases before jumping on board. (Though, I wish I could say the same about some people I know... I've had to handle a few downgrades in the fortnight after Lion was released to fix the mess they jumped into).
-
Why the requirement, the necessities, the demand, to spend €24 and upgrade to Lion? There’s something there that fixes problems you currently have in Snow Leopard? Or instead, it kind of screws up a lot of other currently well running applications? As a Mac user, I see nothing worth €24 to upgrade to Lion, let alone have lots of software I use die in the process.
If and when the time comes I have no option to upgrade to Lion, then I guess push comes to shove, I’ll have to deal with the ramifications. But I don’t see why most people have to spend a little money to end up sending more and lose valuable software in the process (Rosetta).
EXACTLY!
-
Hi!
Yes, I agree.
On the other hand new Macs are probably coming with Lion. Rosetta was a transition technology from Apple to ease conversion from Power PC to Intel and that was quite a few years ago. So Xrite was essentially selling new equipment based on five year old technology they were fully aware of would be phased out sooner or later. Pretty ignorant attitude in my view.
So yes, if you upgrade your problems are well deserved. If you buy a new computer on the other hand than Xrite fails to protect your investment.
Best regards
Erik
Why the requirement, the necessities, the demand, to spend €24 and upgrade to Lion? There’s something there that fixes problems you currently have in Snow Leopard? Or instead, it kind of screws up a lot of other currently well running applications? As a Mac user, I see nothing worth €24 to upgrade to Lion, let alone have lots of software I use die in the process.
If and when the time comes I have no option to upgrade to Lion, then I guess push comes to shove, I’ll have to deal with the ramifications. But I don’t see why most people have to spend a little money to end up sending more and lose valuable software in the process (Rosetta).
-
Andrew, whether I upgrade to Lion right now or in a years time, or two years time, it's still going to cost an extra €500 (if I buy in the UK and pay VAT) if I want to continue to use my perfectly good i1 Pro. In my opinion it's an unreasonable amount of money to ask from people who have already forked out for the hardware - some only recently.
-
Andrew, whether I upgrade to Lion right now or in a years time, or two years time, it's still going to cost an extra €500 (if I buy in the UK and pay VAT) if I want to continue to use my perfectly good i1 Pro.
That is not necessarily true. You don’t have a crystal ball. What may be available to use with that perfectly usable instrument in the future isn’t at all clear. And even if true, there is no reason to hit that issue until you must. By that time, there may well be many other options available to you.
IF you are forced to upgrade (you just purchased a new Mac), OK. But otherwise, you are just asking to spend money in two areas where none is required. For any questionable benefit. That’s just not smart.
-
Why the requirement, the necessities, the demand, to spend €24 and upgrade to Lion? There’s something there that fixes problems you currently have in Snow Leopard? Or instead, it kind of screws up a lot of other currently well running applications? As a Mac user, I see nothing worth €24 to upgrade to Lion, let alone have lots of software I use die in the process.
If and when the time comes I have no option to upgrade to Lion, then I guess push comes to shove, I’ll have to deal with the ramifications. But I don’t see why most people have to spend a little money to end up sending more and lose valuable software in the process (Rosetta).
I just upgraded to Snow Leopard this past weekend on my main workstation! The catalyst was that a new piece of gear required it to work, otherwise I'd still have that machine on Leopard. :)
The only feature I find interesting in Lion is the new file saving. It's very version-control-esque and the ex-software engineer in me likes that. It's not enough reason for me to upgrade though. Between Time Machine, and 3 separate copies of everything via Chronosync, I think I've got it covered!
Cheers, Joe
-
You don’t have a crystal ball.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
Actually all this reminds me - in years gone-by I used a piece of risk analysis software called "Crystal Ball" which was a sophisticated, systematic approach to measuring the impacts on projects of many thousands of simultaneous crap-shoots of different assumptions having different probabilities of occurrence using Monte Carlo simulation - in a non-identical manner kind of resembles what consumers are being subjected to with the disjointed issuing of OS updates and new versions of software by discombobulated companies that do old things in new guise a little better or a little worse.
-
How do you know?
You’d be doing something far more useful and profitable than posting here!
-
Actually all this reminds me - in years gone-by I used a piece of risk analysis software called "Crystal Ball" which was a sophisticated, systematic approach to measuring the impacts on projects of many thousands of simultaneous crap-shoots of different assumptions having different probabilities of occurrence using Monte Carlo simulation - in a non-identical manner kind of resembles what consumers are being subjected to with the disjointed issuing of OS updates and new versions of software by discombobulated companies that do old things in new guise a little better or a little worse.
I trust that this was NOT the software banks and other financial institutions were using to model the safety (or lack thereof) of CDOs prior to 2008 (but then Canada was always way ahead of the curve in terms of not letting their banks get into trouble).
-
I trust that this was NOT the software banks and other financial institutions were using to model the safety (or lack thereof) of CDOs prior to 2008 (but then Canada was always way ahead of the curve in terms of not letting their banks get into trouble).
At the risk of going way OT, correct - there is no software that could do anything of the kind, because the underlying assets were bundled and completely non-transparent. The only thing that saved our banks was first and foremost innate conservatism and then possibly stricter regulation.