Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 09:24:33 AM

Title: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 09:24:33 AM
FWIW, I just posted my i1Pro2 review at http://www.on-sight.com/?p=2522

It's short and to the point highlighting the important differences that I think people will want to know about. It includes, amoung others, a screen grab of the Measure Modes and Conditions dialog that's so unique to this device. It also briefly mentions the new "Measure Chart" and "Measure Reference Chart" functionality. It's a quick read - hope it's useful.

I've also released an article on how the new i1Profiler v1.3 can be used to take grayscale measurements with any i1 device (i1Pro1, i1Pro2, iSis, iO table) for use with QTR grayscale profiling. http://www.on-sight.com/?p=2520

Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 11, 2012, 09:38:42 AM
It also briefly mentions the new "Measure Chart" and "Measure Reference Chart" functionality. I

You play with the Measure Chart? Buggy on this end, very buggy.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 09:48:46 AM
You play with the Measure Chart? Buggy on this end, very buggy.

Yes, I have a separate article out on using "Measure Reference Chart" for grayscale measurement for QTR grayscale profiling. http://www.on-sight.com/?p=2520  Took me a while to figure out how to get the data sets into i1Profiler but with the saved workflows that I put on my website I think it will make it much easier for others to use.

That's been pretty solid for me. "Measure Chart" has useful for quick spot measurements and to measure the occasional target that I can't have reprinted. Generally speaking I think it's important that we all embrace new i1Profiler targets and not continue using old targets. nonetheless, these "Measure Chart" and "Measure Reference Chart" will be useful once in a blue moon and provides additional functionality for weird processes like grayscale profiling.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: VitOne on April 11, 2012, 10:00:05 AM
Thanks for the review, interesting.

I would like to know your impressions about the quality of the readings. Did you notice an improvement over the older  i1Pro REVD?

I think I am going to update to this new instrument but some other users that have tested the new i1Pro 2 told me that they could not notice any improvement over the scan quality. Of course you have some interesting features such as the ďmultiple illuminantĒ that allow you to use the ďOBA  featureĒ in i1Profiler software, but Iíd also like to know what do you think about quality of the lectures (maybe also comparing the new instrument to a Spectrolino or an i1isis.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 10:05:51 AM
The DeltaE variations are lower than with the previous device and in line with the latest iSis device. Long story short - it's better and on par with XRite's more expensive devices. I don't have the numbers handy to me right now but perhaps Andrew will chime in with some.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: VitOne on April 11, 2012, 10:14:40 AM
Thanks for the fast answer. I saw Andrew's review a few minutes ago, I'd like to say thank him too.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 11, 2012, 10:16:30 AM
As I mentioned, it correlates better with my iSis Rev E, the Rev E is different (newer) than previous iSis units. So in that respect, Iím happy. Without a higher end reference Spectrophotometer (whoís qualities are similar in terms of the M series and so forth), and a larger sample of units to compare, we are just guessing here. I really donít think we need to spend much time discussing how many deltaE values can dance on the head of this pin.

It would be useful to trend how the device measures the same data over time!

The thing to consider is that multiple devices using differing technologies in no why guarantee the measurements are Ďrightí. Take the iSis. I have both a Rev C and Rev E. Both produce excellent quality profiles. X-Rite changed the insides of the unit for the Rev E, presumably to improve it and better deal with the new XRGA Ďstandardsí which is a good thing. It behaves differently than the Rev C. The max deltaís are about 1 and change or so, nothing earth shattering. Point is, which is Ďbetterí? Which do we use to say Ďthis is the correct, standard measurementí? For those of us that track things like press variation over time, using the same instrument, when something new comes along (say our Rev C needs service or we need to add another iSis), this can cause some issues in the trending of the data. For other users, it isnít a factor.

What X-Rite is trying to do, and I commend them for it, is making a process that draws a line in the sand in terms of how these various devices behave and thus correlate. A lot of users donít recognize that a Spectrophotometer made from company A and one from company B donít have to behave the same (hence the idea around XRGA and some of the M series standards).
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: VitOne on April 11, 2012, 11:16:07 AM
I really donít think we need to spend much time discussing how many deltaE values can dance on the head of this pin.

It would be useful to trend how the device measures the same data over time!

The thing to consider is that multiple devices using differing technologies in no why guarantee the measurements are Ďrightí. Take the iSis. I have both a Rev C and Rev E. Both produce excellent quality profiles. X-Rite changed the insides of the unit for the Rev E, presumably to improve it and better deal with the new XRGA Ďstandardsí which is a good thing. It behaves differently than the Rev C. The max deltaís are about 1 and change or so, nothing earth shattering. Point is, which is Ďbetterí? Which do we use to say Ďthis is the correct, standard measurementí? For those of us that track things like press variation over time, using the same instrument, when something new comes along (say our Rev C needs service or we need to add another iSis), this can cause some issues in the trending of the data. For other users, it isnít a factor.

What X-Rite is trying to do, and I commend them for it, is making a process that draws a line in the sand in terms of how these various devices behave and thus correlate. A lot of users donít recognize that a Spectrophotometer made from company A and one from company B donít have to behave the same (hence the idea around XRGA and some of the M series standards).

Thanks! I was asking just for impression for this reasons.

I have never been really happy with the i1Pro ďdark areaĒ behavior, and I hope to try this new device soon. I noticed that they have implemented a few new features (relating temperature and time) that could improve also the quality of emissive measurements.

I have notice that almost all the instrument that I use require some adjusting over time, and that, in general, behavior of both the printer and the measuring device is influenced by many parameters (humidity, temperature). Over time I noticed that everything is moving in the right way for ď better colorsĒ and, generally speaking, I am happy with a better device, but I am not a ďDeltaE warriorĒ.

Just to donít go too off topic: do you have any idea of upgrade cost for owner of previous software and hardware? I notice that (in USA) the update cost should be around 800 dollars (I am moving from an i1Publish PRO to an i1Publish PRO 2).
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: rasworth on April 11, 2012, 11:33:41 AM
Will the new i1Profiler version accomodate OBC correction with old i1Pros, i.e. if one does dual scans with both non-uvcut and uvcut instruments, can the new sw utilize?

Richard Southworth
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 11, 2012, 12:14:54 PM
The upgrade info I can find thus far seems to be here:

https://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?id=1951

Using two different instruments (i1Proís) to utilize OBC module? I donít know if that is possible, I donít know how youíd load the two separate sets of data and if the software would barf on it if you could. I doubt it will fly.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 11, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
The upgrade info I can find thus far seems to be here:

https://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?id=1951

I commented on this back on the 'About this Site' page and they do not offer an upgrade path if you just want new hardware.  You have to buy the software bundle.  I've been using ArgyllCMS to do profiles as I can correct for OBAs in a meaningful way.  If I want to upgrade here, I need to spend a lot more money than just buying a new piece of hardware.  I guess X-Rite want to lock you into their software solution (which is of course their right).
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 12:50:01 PM
Quote
Just to donít go too off topic: do you have any idea of upgrade cost for owner of previous software and hardware?

If you're looking to upgrade to Publish2 from Publish1 it's $599 for the software only and $1499 with the new device. You can contact your dealer for the full pricelist, which is fairly complex. Street pricing could be lower than the retail numbers above.

Will the new i1Profiler version accomodate OBC correction with old i1Pros, i.e. if one does dual scans with both non-uvcut and uvcut instruments, can the new sw utilize?

Nope, sorry. The nature of the dual illuminant measurement data is actually quite different then what you would get from an i1Pro and i1ProUVCut. OBC is and will only supported with the iSis and i1Pro2.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 12:52:55 PM
I commented on this back on the 'About this Site' page and they do not offer an upgrade path if you just want new hardware.

That's not correct. I have the official pricelist given to dealers that contains the various options. There are hardware upgrades that are lower than buying the hardware outright. Naturally, all solutions come with a CD with the software. Heck you can download the software for free from XRite.

I should add that I'm not a dealer and don't sell any products whatsoever. I think sales is direct conflict to excellent consulting services and training. I want to my clients to know that when I recommend something it's because I truly think it's best for them separate from any financial gain on my behalf.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: rasworth on April 11, 2012, 01:58:02 PM
The question for those of us who already own an i1Profiler license/dongle, along with the instruments, is will Xrite sell us an unbundled instrument.  In the past one had to buy some sort of kit with the instrument and at least base software.

Richard Southworth
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 02:40:55 PM
The question for those of us who already own an i1Profiler license/dongle, along with the instruments, is will Xrite sell us an unbundled instrument.  In the past one had to buy some sort of kit with the instrument and at least base software.

Yes, there is - it's US$1199 MSRP if you've purchased since April 2011. If purchased before April 2011 then the regular upgrade bundles apply.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 11, 2012, 02:44:23 PM
FYI, i1Profiler version 1.3.1 has just been released on their website and via the in-app update process.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 11, 2012, 05:17:05 PM
Yes, there is - it's US$1199 MSRP if you've purchased since April 2011. If purchased before April 2011 then the regular upgrade bundles apply.
I thought that this is just the retail price of the "Raven" without the profile making software and it's certainly $300 more than I paid for my i1 Pro last summer.  I don't think this qualifies as an upgrade and the only ones I saw were the spectro/software bundles.

Alan
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Rhossydd on April 11, 2012, 06:04:01 PM
There are hardware upgrades that are lower than buying the hardware outright. Naturally, all solutions come with a CD with the software. Heck you can download the software for free from XRite.
From what I can see on X-Rite's site; You don't 'just' buy the hardware, you have to buy the lowest inclusive package to get your hands on the hardware. If you already own an i1 Pro and i1Profiler Publish (and possibly have licence fo PMP too) the only 'upgrade' path is to buy the standard i1Pro 2 Basic package for monitors and projectors which includes the requisite new licence for i1profiler too, but wouldn't include printer profiling.

I'll wait to see what the implications of that are, considering the complications of the USB dongle. I've got a dongle via PMP5 > i1profiler. Will i1profiler 1.3 use all the facilities of the new spectro via the existing dongle ? or will the spectro or dongle need upgrading ?
As ever with X-Rite it's all very complicated, inter-related and confusing.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 11, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Will i1profiler 1.3 use all the facilities of the new spectro via the existing dongle ? or will the spectro or dongle need upgrading ?

The USB dongle will do the job (or youíll end up with two dongles, one being the i1pro 2). For example, my i1Pro 2 is licensed for Publish but so is my HASP dongle. I can use either.

FWIW, got the final production package today. The new hardware is really nice. Iíve been working with pre-production hardware. The final quality is great and a big step up from the older hardware. The case that holds all the other pieces is also really slick. These guys can do hardware. Now if we could get the software in that kind of shape!
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: JeffKohn on April 11, 2012, 10:20:42 PM
I thought that this is just the retail price of the "Raven" without the profile making software and it's certainly $300 more than I paid for my i1 Pro last summer.  I don't think this qualifies as an upgrade and the only ones I saw were the spectro/software bundles.
IMHO it's not realistic to expect upgrade pricing for the new spectro hardware. Since when do you get cheap upgrades for hardware? 

Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: PhilipCummins on April 12, 2012, 03:35:14 AM
From what I can see on X-Rite's site; You don't 'just' buy the hardware, you have to buy the lowest inclusive package to get your hands on the hardware.

That's what I saw as well, if you had i1 Publish Pro you simply had to purchase the i1 Basic Pro 2 and then use the new i1Profiler "Transfer License" option to migrate the licenses from the old i1Pro to the new i1Pro 2. The old i1Pro is downgraded to the equivalent i1 Basic Pro level while the i1Pro 2 is used for licensing from then on.

I guess theoretically you could transfer licenses and then sell your old i1Pro as an i1 Basic Pro or for other people who would want to use it with CalMan, ChromaPure or Argyll (or keep it as a backup/sanity check device).
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Rhossydd on April 12, 2012, 03:53:33 AM
my i1Pro 2 is licensed for Publish but so is my HASP dongle. I can use either.
I doubt you'd see any issues if everything you have access to is fully licensed.

I can imagine issues for my own situation where I have two i1Pros (both dating from GMB days) that act as a dongle for i1Match for monitor and printer profiling, I then have a separate dongle from PMP5 that holds the licence for PMP5 & i1 Profiler Publish.

If the transfer licence option has to be used on the new spectro and takes away the licence from the dongle, I won't be very happy.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on April 12, 2012, 04:03:59 AM

I have never been really happy with the i1Pro ďdark areaĒ behavior, and I hope to try this new device soon. I noticed that they have implemented a few new features (relating temperature and time) that could improve also the quality of emissive measurements.


My guess is that the latest X-Rite Display colorimeters are still better than spectrometers for emissive readings but wonder whether the reviewers can shed a light on this.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piŽzografie,giclťe
www.pigment-print.com
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Czornyj on April 12, 2012, 05:10:43 AM
My guess is that the latest X-Rite Display colorimeters are still better than spectrometers for emissive readings but wonder whether the reviewers can shed a light on this.

I doubt that any inexpansive portable 10nm spectrophotometer can be more accurate than lab grade instruments used to characterize spectral sensitivity curves of i1Display pro and spectra of current display types (1nm Konica-Minolta CS-1000 in last case).
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: FMueller on April 12, 2012, 08:02:04 AM
IMHO it's not realistic to expect upgrade pricing for the new spectro hardware. Since when do you get cheap upgrades for hardware? 



Well, when your hardware is only a few months old and the manufacturer didn't really give you any heads up that "hey, we got something new just about to be released...." Given all the teeth gnashing about whether to buy UV-cut or not, it would have amounted to a courteous and customer oriented approach. But, hey that's just me...

Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: PhilipCummins on April 12, 2012, 08:55:39 AM
If the transfer licence option has to be used on the new spectro and takes away the licence from the dongle, I won't be very happy.

From what I could see you just required a licensed dongle to enable the features, you would only use the transfer license if you wanted to migrate from the old i1Pro to the new i1Pro 2 and then either shelve/sell the old one. In your case you'd just keep using the PMP5 dongle and plug in the i1Pro 2 to use.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 12, 2012, 09:24:09 AM
The Dealer Guide clearly shows options "To upgrade device only". Email me if you want to see this for yourself.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 12, 2012, 09:55:35 AM
I thought that this is just the retail price of the "Raven" without the profile making software and it's certainly $300 more than I paid for my i1 Pro last summer.  I don't think this qualifies as an upgrade and the only ones I saw were the spectro/software bundles.

Yes, Alan, this is the "upgrade device only" price for those that have bought i1Pro packages since April of 2011. Look at the dealer guide or have a verbal conversation with your dealer about this. There is separate pricing for those upgrading from "legacy" systems prior to April 2011 or for those buying new system outright. It's all very complicated. I think you must read the Dealer Guide to understand it. Email me if you 'd like to see it.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 12, 2012, 10:01:07 AM
From what I can see on X-Rite's site; You don't 'just' buy the hardware, you have to buy the lowest inclusive package to get your hands on the hardware. If you already own an i1 Pro and i1Profiler Publish (and possibly have licence fo PMP too) the only 'upgrade' path is to buy the standard i1Pro 2 Basic package for monitors and projectors which includes the requisite new licence for i1profiler too, but wouldn't include printer profiling.

No, there are "upgrade device only" options that are more affordable than the Upgrade Option A and B that you see on the website.

I'll wait to see what the implications of that are, considering the complications of the USB dongle. I've got a dongle via PMP5 > i1profiler. Will i1profiler 1.3 use all the facilities of the new spectro via the existing dongle ? or will the spectro or dongle need upgrading ?

You'd be eligible for the "upgrade device only" options then. The new deivce may or may not come with licensing (I've seen plenty of i1Pro1's that had no licensing at all) so you's likely need to use your dongle.

As ever with X-Rite it's all very complicated, inter-related and confusing.

Yes it is!! It's understandable that people are so confused. It's the dealer's job to make this stuff easier to understand and answer questions about this. I should keep quiet and let them do this.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: mmurph on April 12, 2012, 11:07:14 AM
I should keep quiet and let them do this.

No, this is very helpful - thank you!   ;D ;D

So far all we would know about, without your input, is the $1,499 Option A and $1,699 Option B.

This is very complex, and I have been misinformed by otherwise dependable dealers, depending on who I talk with. I usually know as much or more than the dealers, because I use this stuff day-to-day.  

Especially with a new release like this, it is important to have time to clearly think through all of the options before making a quick decision based on partial, verbal information from someone who hasn't thought through all of the possible scenarios.  

Your input is very valuable!

I am still struggling with learning Lightroom 4, migrating from Photoshop CS 5.5 to CS 6.0 Production Premium, buying a Canon 5D3 or a Nikon D800E, swapping (some of) my 10 Canon L lenses to Nikon, buying a video stabilizer, cage, monitor, audio recorder, what to do with my Zeiss lenses, converting a B4 ENG mount to a G2 camera ----- finishing my taxes --- arg!!   :o ::)

I am willing to go through this once a year, or maybe two.  Then it is time to get back to taking pictures!  Sick of being an engineer all of the time!     :'(

Cheers! Thanks Scott & Andrew!

Michael
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 12, 2012, 12:18:07 PM
Yes, I have a separate article out on using "Measure Reference Chart" for grayscale measurement for QTR grayscale profiling. http://www.on-sight.com/?p=2520  Took me a while to figure out how to get the data sets into i1Profiler but with the saved workflows that I put on my website I think it will make it much easier for others to use.

It appears the new Measure Chart module saves out txt files differently than the other modules. I have to do more testing although Iím not sure I want to spend the time.

IF I save out Spectral data from the module, it appears it isnít formatted correctly and ColorThink canít accept this data. Yet saving out the same option elsewhere does seem to work.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 12, 2012, 01:20:06 PM
Yes, Alan, this is the "upgrade device only" price for those that have bought i1Pro packages since April of 2011. Look at the dealer guide or have a verbal conversation with your dealer about this. There is separate pricing for those upgrading from "legacy" systems prior to April 2011 or for those buying new system outright. It's all very complicated. I think you must read the Dealer Guide to understand it. Email me if you 'd like to see it.
I'll check with Chromix as they are the dealer that sold me the i1 Pro last summer.  Thanks!
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 12, 2012, 11:16:15 PM
It appears the new Measure Chart module saves out txt files differently than the other modules. I have to do more testing although Iím not sure I want to spend the time.

IF I save out Spectral data from the module, it appears it isnít formatted correctly and ColorThink canít accept this data. Yet saving out the same option elsewhere does seem to work.

So "Measure Reference Chart" works but "Measure Chart" does not? I love the jagillion formatting options...
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 13, 2012, 09:35:30 AM
So "Measure Reference Chart" works but "Measure Chart" does not? I love the jagillion formatting options...

Havenít played with Measure Reference Chart. I have saved out measured data from the profile modules.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 13, 2012, 09:41:10 AM
Havenít played with Measure Reference Chart. I have saved out measured data from the profile modules.

Well if it helps, you're free to download my QTR workflow files that you can use in Measure Reference Chart. The 21 step target is pretty easy and fast to measure.

http://www.on-sight.com/2012/04/11/using-i1profiler-for-qtr-grayscale-measurement-and-profiling/
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 13, 2012, 09:47:49 AM
Well if it helps, you're free to download my QTR workflow files that you can use in Measure Reference Chart. The 21 step target is pretty easy and fast to measure.

Iíve already done this in the new module (you can make a chart with only two patches if you wish). That bit is easy. It is the various incarnations of data formats and what they allow us to do within i1Profiler that isnít clear.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on April 13, 2012, 11:18:20 AM
No, there are "upgrade device only" options that are more affordable than the Upgrade Option A and B that you see on the website.

Do you know the SRP of this option?

Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 13, 2012, 11:34:38 AM
Do you know the SRP of this option?

THe US MSRP is $1199.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on April 13, 2012, 07:27:35 PM
Thanks for the information.

So it will be cheaper to buy the i1 Basic Pro 2 than only the hardware upgrade.





Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: JeffKohn on April 14, 2012, 01:56:22 AM
Thanks for the information.

So it will be cheaper to buy the i1 Basic Pro 2 than only the hardware upgrade.
Seems to me the hardware upgrade is the i1 Basic Pro 2.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on April 14, 2012, 03:17:20 AM
Ha, you are right!

I haven't seen it first on the homepage.

To upgrade device only

i1Basic Pro ->i1Basic Pro 2
i1Photo Pro -> i1Basic Pro 2
i1Publish Pro -> i1Basic Pro 2

But what was the talking of a better price if you purchased the i1 Pro after april 2012?

Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: MHMG on April 14, 2012, 08:41:51 AM
Iíve already done this in the new module (you can make a chart with only two patches if you wish). That bit is easy. It is the various incarnations of data formats and what they allow us to do within i1Profiler that isnít clear.

Andrew, quick question. Can i1profiler use something like TC918 chart data originally created in Measuretool's txt format?

thanks,
Mark
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 14, 2012, 10:59:49 AM
Andrew, quick question. Can i1profiler use something like TC918 chart data originally created in Measuretool's txt format?

Yes. But for best results, you want to regenerate your patches in i1Profiler. The differences are not huge but noticeable. Prior to i1Profiler, I used Bill Atkinsionís targets. I had i1Profiler regenerate the same number of patches (obviously it produces different ones), ran some tests and agreed with X-rite that indeed, new patch generation is better.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: MHMG on April 14, 2012, 03:25:56 PM
Yes. But for best results, you want to regenerate your patches in i1Profiler. The differences are not huge but noticeable. Prior to i1Profiler, I used Bill Atkinsionís targets. I had i1Profiler regenerate the same number of patches (obviously it produces different ones), ran some tests and agreed with X-rite that indeed, new patch generation is better.

So that I'm sure I understand, you're talking about i1Profiler generating, for a given total patch count, a new custom target with a different set of RGB or CMYK values than traditional targets (like Bill Atkinson's targets) which means the patch values deviate from uniform interval spacing?
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: FMueller on April 14, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
Ha, you are right!

I haven't seen it first on the homepage.

To upgrade device only

i1Basic Pro ->i1Basic Pro 2
i1Photo Pro -> i1Basic Pro 2
i1Publish Pro -> i1Basic Pro 2

But what was the talking of a better price if you purchased the i1 Pro after april 2012?



I don't see it at all. Could you point me to a webpage that talks about upgrading device only?

Thanks.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 14, 2012, 05:34:35 PM
So that I'm sure I understand, you're talking about i1Profiler generating, for a given total patch count, a new custom target with a different set of RGB or CMYK values than traditional targets (like Bill Atkinson's targets) which means the patch values deviate from uniform interval spacing?

For the same number of patches, it generates different values, the generation appears to be superior to the older patch generation engine.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 14, 2012, 11:24:50 PM
So that I'm sure I understand, you're talking about i1Profiler generating, for a given total patch count, a new custom target with a different set of RGB or CMYK values than traditional targets (like Bill Atkinson's targets) which means the patch values deviate from uniform interval spacing?

i1Profiler is based on Monaco Profiler. Profiler's engine used what you're calling uniform interval spacing with targets like the RGB 343, 729 and 1728 patch targets. i1Profiler needs the same uniformity but takes it a step further by adding gray balance patches.

FWIW, Check out my "Onsight RGB v7 Inkjet Profiling Target" at http://www.on-sight.com/downloads/ It's a true 16 bit target with 16 bit reference data. I've been working with the i1Prism engineers for many, many years and this target came out of a discussion of optimal patch placement. It's kinda like an updated version of an Atkinson target. I really love the visual nature of the Atkinson target and find it quite useful in day to day usage, thus the creation of this target. You can get something pretty similar out of i1Profiler these days but it won't have the nice visual quality, not will it be in 16 bits (and the usefulness of 16 bits is questionable).


Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on April 15, 2012, 02:20:32 AM
I don't see it at all. Could you point me to a webpage that talks about upgrading device only?

Thanks.

http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?id=1951

Just in the middle of the page.

But as I have written - the option "To upgrade device only" means you have to buy the i1 Basic Pro 2!
So the "hardware only" in reality means to buy a whole new retail package (which of course includes the hardware AND the software)


Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 15, 2012, 09:09:03 AM
But as I have written - the option "To upgrade device only" means you have to buy the i1 Basic Pro 2!
So the "hardware only" in reality means to buy a whole new retail package (which of course includes the hardware AND the software)

I know this is confusing but I don't think there's anything devious going on here.

The software is available to anyone for free from the website. But you can't use it without a dongle, or an i1 that has the licensing internally (an internal dongle essentially). So the software doesn't work without the hardware.

If you have a pre-April 2011 i1 (let's say a higher level i1 like the Publish or Extreme) then you don't have i1Profiler software functionality. To get the new hardware and full software functionality, you need to purchase the Upgrade B option for $1699. If you've already purchased i1Profiler since it came out then you can get the new device (the i1BasicPro2 package) for $1199 ($500 less) (which has restricted software functionality) and transfer your existing software licensing to the new device and have full access to all the features in the software. So, you see, you're not really buying the full software functionally with that more affordable upgrade path. Plus you get all the new device accessories and goodies like the ColorChecker Proof and Minichecker.

I agree all of the options are confusing but, IMO, these are fair upgrade options for people. And of course, even ~10 year old Rev A i1Pros work pretty darn well in i1Profiler which is impressive.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: FMueller on April 15, 2012, 10:27:50 AM
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?id=1951

Just in the middle of the page.

But as I have written - the option "To upgrade device only" means you have to buy the i1 Basic Pro 2!
So the "hardware only" in reality means to buy a whole new retail package (which of course includes the hardware AND the software)




Thank you for the pointer.

"You will not have to surrender the use of your current solution in order to upgrade. However, the upgrade process does verify that the original solution is legitimate and eligible for upgrade. In order to activate, upgrade process requires serial number from i1Pro device or software dongle from ProfileMaker or MonacoPROFILER solutions."

If I'm reading this correctly, this means that my eye one pro spectro purchased as as part of the i1 photo pro package post april 2011 will retain its full functionality to profile papers. While I would always prefer better pricing, this seem like a fair enough deal. I was concerned that as part of the upgrade process, my current eye one spectro would be "de-licensed" for paper profiling.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 15, 2012, 11:36:41 AM
I agree all of the options are confusing but, IMO, these are fair upgrade options for people. And of course, even ~10 year old Rev A i1Pros work pretty darn well in i1Profiler which is impressive.
The confusion about the hardware upgrade is actually pretty simple.  When I bought my i1 Pro last summer, I did not buy the printer profiling software package as I use ArgyllCMS for my own purpose and have made profiles for others using it as well.  Thus, I can only use my i1 Pro to do monitor calibration since that is the only software app that comes with the basic package.  I cannot get a special upgrade price UNLESS I go for the full profiling software which I don't need.  It's all irrelevant at this point because I would still have to wait for Graeme Gill to provide the support for the i1 Pro2 for Argyll which will take some time.  The nice thing about Argyll is that I can generate excellent printer profiles and am not bound by the X-Rite EULA.

Alan
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
You can get something pretty similar out of i1Profiler these days but it won't have the nice visual quality, not will it be in 16 bits (and the usefulness of 16 bits is questionable).

Considering how few drivers will pass the full 16-bit data, sure. I still think it would be nice if i1Profiler (like Bill and your targets), were 16-bit for those that do. No harm done. Easy to sample down to 8-bits per color (or just leave it alone). Hopefully you can convince the X-rite gang of updating this in the next release. Should be small engineering.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: alain on April 15, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Considering how few drivers will pass the full 16-bit data, sure. I still think it would be nice if i1Profiler (like Bill and your targets), were 16-bit for those that do. No harm done. Easy to sample down to 8-bits per color (or just leave it alone). Hopefully you can convince the X-rite gang of updating this in the next release. Should be small engineering.

Even if all drivers would allow full 16-bit paths, this seems unneeded.  When using a 8-bit target there are 256 * 256 * 256 different colour patches possible, most targets use only about 1/10.000 off the possible combinations.    Even with an extra optimization step it's doubtful that there will be a difference possible.  It would mean that it's not possible to do a -very- good interpolation between two colours that are only 1/256 in one off the channels different ( for example 200,200,200 and 201,200,200).

The only -practical- use would be that the printer (driver) is treating a 16-bit image  different that the same image as 8-bit.  But this seems problematic for that printer ;-)
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: MHMG on April 15, 2012, 01:01:38 PM
i1Profiler is based on Monaco Profiler. Profiler's engine used what you're calling uniform interval spacing with targets like the RGB 343, 729 and 1728 patch targets. i1Profiler needs the same uniformity but takes it a step further by adding gray balance patches.

FWIW, Check out my "Onsight RGB v7 Inkjet Profiling Target" at http://www.on-sight.com/downloads/ It's a true 16 bit target with 16 bit reference data. I've been working with the i1Prism engineers for many, many years and this target came out of a discussion of optimal patch placement. It's kinda like an updated version of an Atkinson target. I really love the visual nature of the Atkinson target and find it quite useful in day to day usage, thus the creation of this target. You can get something pretty similar out of i1Profiler these days but it won't have the nice visual quality, not will it be in 16 bits (and the usefulness of 16 bits is questionable).

Thanks Scott, the gray ramp addition to the profiling process makes good sense and probably will help with profile quality in neutral/near neutral color/tone gradients. Like you, I thought Atkinson's target had nice signature pattern. I have never liked working with scrambled color patch targets because good visual ramps quickly allow the user to figure out when things aren't quite right in many instances without having to take the time to measure the target. Also, I've always felt that the original rationale for scrambling which was based on the notion of averaging out printer inconsistency and non-uniformity is kind of a circular argument since printers that show those problems often aren't worth profiling, IMHO.  Later, as the profiling device manufacturers moved away from position-based patch detection to optical edge/guideline detection, scrambled patches again became an necessary part of that technique, but I've personally seen too many instances where the optical patch recognition fails miserably.  I'm glad to see the new i1Pro2 is returning to some of that direct position detection via the grated ruler.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2012, 01:11:33 PM
Thanks Scott, the gray ramp addition to the profiling process makes good sense and probably will help with profile quality in neutral/near neutral color/tone gradients.

Also consider the optimization process for grays alone:

http://www.i1upgrades.com/2011/08/how-to-use-the-tc-2502-gray-optimization-chart/

On my Epson printers, I do see an improvement (Roman 16 neutral test images) both in neutrality and smoothness of gradients.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Nigel Johnson on April 15, 2012, 03:02:39 PM
Plus you get all the new device accessories and goodies like the ColorChecker Proof and Minichecker.

Scott

According to the X-Rite site and downloaded brochure, i1Basic Pro 2 (the 'hardware only' upgrade) does not include the ColorChecker Proof or ColorChecker Classic (mini) although they were included as part of the i1Publish software upgrade.

Regards
Nigel
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: alain on April 15, 2012, 06:45:01 PM
Also consider the optimization process for grays alone:

http://www.i1upgrades.com/2011/08/how-to-use-the-tc-2502-gray-optimization-chart/

On my Epson printers, I do see an improvement (Roman 16 neutral test images) both in neutrality and smoothness of gradients.

Impressive, but 2502 gray patches and hand crafted spot colours.
Maybe 99% can be obtained with one A4/letter size patch page (834 patches).

BTW. Adding patches for the Color checker (24) and/or QPCard (35) colours would be something that's possible with the optimization process.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2012, 06:59:50 PM
Impressive, but 2502 gray patches and hand crafted spot colours.

Marc made a 900 odd patch I can forward if you want it. He didnít post to the blog.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Mark Paulson on April 15, 2012, 08:41:43 PM
Marc made a 900 odd patch I can forward if you want it. He didnít post to the blog.
I would like a copy, but I am confused. Does the original profile have to have the same number of patches?
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: aaronchan on April 15, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
Marc made a 900 odd patch I can forward if you want it. He didnít post to the blog.

Would you send me a copy as well?
I've tried the 2 thousand whatever one and it didn't work.
I would like to spend a bit less time to do a bit more experiment on this optimization module.

Thanks
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on April 16, 2012, 01:28:18 AM
According to the X-Rite site and downloaded brochure, i1Basic Pro 2 (the 'hardware only' upgrade) does not include the ColorChecker Proof or ColorChecker Classic (mini) although they were included as part of the i1Publish software upgrade.

You already have them - either as part of i1 Photo Pro or i1 Publish Pro or the iProfiler upgrade package A or B or iProfiler software only.
That are the only ways you can already have a working iProfiler printing module license.


Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: smilem on April 16, 2012, 07:53:56 AM
I think like with every hardware, when Rev D or E comes then it will be worth purchasing, until then we just have to wait. The price will drop too. :)
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on April 16, 2012, 09:00:18 AM
Also, I've always felt that the original rationale for scrambling which was based on the notion of averaging out printer inconsistency and non-uniformity is kind of a circular argument since printers that show those problems often aren't worth profiling, IMHO.
 
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Was there not a kind of hysteresis in the spectrometer also suppressed by the patch scrambling? That was what I assumed as the main reason to use it.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piŽzografie,giclťe
www.pigment-print.com
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 16, 2012, 09:32:26 AM
Also consider the optimization process for grays alone:

http://www.i1upgrades.com/2011/08/how-to-use-the-tc-2502-gray-optimization-chart/

On my Epson printers, I do see an improvement (Roman 16 neutral test images) both in neutrality and smoothness of gradients.

Can I ask you, how many gray patches did your initial target contain? Optimization was designed for low patch count target like those used with the Munki. In theory, if your initial target contains enough well placed patches, optimization shouldn't be needed. I'd personally rather develop an ideal target, rather than introducing a 2 step process with optimization if I can achieve the same result.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 16, 2012, 09:36:13 AM
I still think it would be nice if i1Profiler (like Bill and your targets), were 16-bit for those that do.

Right i1P doesn't generate or measure targets in 16 bits - one more reason to measure in ColorPort (as I do) and drag and drop the 16 bit measurement files onto i1Profiler which it processes beautifully. I've done tests and on the iPF printers I can see a difference with the 16 bit target but it's darn slight.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2012, 09:40:21 AM
I would like a copy, but I am confused. Does the original profile have to have the same number of patches?

The two targets used do not have to have the same number of patches. They are independent of each other in the profile and optimization process.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2012, 09:41:20 AM
Would you send me a copy as well?
I've tried the 2 thousand whatever one and it didn't work.

If it didnít work (and Iím not sure why) I donít see how the 900 patch would work any better.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2012, 09:46:56 AM
Can I ask you, how many gray patches did your initial target contain? Optimization was designed for low patch count target like those used with the Munki.

Iím not sure, Iíll have to look but not anything like 2500 <g>

As you know from another forum, Iíve been a critic of the optimization process until I tried Marcís target and applied it to profiles Iíve built using 1700 odd plus patches. Iíve yet to see optimization do anything useful expect for low patch initial Munki-like targets with color patches in optimization. With 2500 gray patches, I do see improvement in neutrals and their gradients being smoother but it isnít huge.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Nigel Johnson on April 17, 2012, 03:44:38 PM
You already have them - either as part of i1 Photo Pro or i1 Publish Pro or the iProfiler upgrade package A or B or iProfiler software only.
That are the only ways you can already have a working iProfiler printing module license.
ThDo

Why not bother to read a post before you create a stupid reply it - I stated that they were included as part of the i1Publish software upgrade in my post.

Nigel
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Jalok on April 17, 2012, 04:57:37 PM
Iím not sure, Iíll have to look but not anything like 2500 <g>

As you know from another forum, Iíve been a critic of the optimization process until I tried Marcís target and applied it to profiles Iíve built using 1700 odd plus patches. Iíve yet to see optimization do anything useful expect for low patch initial Munki-like targets with color patches in optimization. With 2500 gray patches, I do see improvement in neutrals and their gradients being smoother but it isnít huge.

I've seen improvement not only in neutrals and gradients but also in Dmax of the darkest neutral tone. Also, to see those improvements it was not needed to apply the huge Marcs' target, but a simple 400-500 patch optimization target plus "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" tones.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 17, 2012, 05:01:09 PM
I've seen improvement not only in neutrals and gradients but also in Dmax of the darkest neutral tone. Also, to see those improvements it was not needed to apply the huge Marcs' target, but a simple 400-500 patch optimization target plus "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" tones.

OK, so how many patches and neutral patches did *your* original target have?
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Jalok on April 17, 2012, 05:23:13 PM
OK, so how many patches and neutral patches did *your* original target have?

2052 patches. I've also done the inverse experiment, profiling with 400-500 patches then applying optimization with 2052 + plus "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" tones. The 2052 + 500 patch profile is better than the 500 + 2052 one. The only procedure that exceeded in quality all those experiments was a kind of preprofiling calibration, which consisted in searching the best RGB bias combination for a given paper that would produce the nearest gray-axis for a 10 or 20 step grayscale. But it was only marginally better than the ""roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" optimization, and only in some paper and ink combinations.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 17, 2012, 05:31:16 PM
A 2052 only has 18 gray axis patches. I'd suggest starting with a target that contains a ton of gray axis patches. 2033 for example, contains well over 100 gray patches and will, IMO produce a better profile to start with, potentially limiting the benefit of optimization.

Again, I'd rather start with a smart target containing tons of gray patches than have to optimize it with a second step.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Mark Paulson on April 17, 2012, 05:38:55 PM
Ok I give. What the heck is a "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb"  ?
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2012, 05:40:55 PM
Ok I give. What the heck is a "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb"  ?

http://www.roman16.com/en/
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Jalok on April 18, 2012, 04:17:55 PM
A 2052 only has 18 gray axis patches. I'd suggest starting with a target that contains a ton of gray axis patches. 2033 for example, contains well over 100 gray patches and will, IMO produce a better profile to start with, potentially limiting the benefit of optimization.

Again, I'd rather start with a smart target containing tons of gray patches than have to optimize it with a second step.

I never thought this would make any difference, because many paper/ink/printer combinations here print R=G=B patches too off the gray axis, so other R+i, G+j, B+k target scales would be more useful to neutralize the grayscale. That's in theory (or not even this). I will try to reprofile a given paper using the 2033-patch targets and compare the results to the one archieved with the original 2052-patch targets plus optimization.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 20, 2012, 09:03:13 AM
I never thought this would make any difference,...

With i1P it does...

I will try to reprofile a given paper using the 2033-patch targets and compare the results to the one archieved with the original 2052-patch targets plus optimization.

Great - let us know what you find!
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: jwlimages on April 20, 2012, 01:34:24 PM
Quote
A 2052 only has 18 gray axis patches. I'd suggest starting with a target that contains a ton of gray axis patches. 2033 for example, contains well over 100 gray patches

-- first off, Scott, thank you for this and the other info you're sharing about using i1P.

At the risk of betraying my ignorance, though - how does one find out this kind of information? Without any documentation from X-rite (sorry, the few tidbits in the "Support" section of the web site don't count), what does the user do - go through patch sets incrementing the total # one at a time, saving out tiffs & using Photoshop to count how many patches are close to "gray" values?! (then extend the nightmare by repeating this process for CMYK profiles to use with a RIP?!)

Is there some logic to why a 2033-patch count has more than 5X the gray axis patches than another target generated with #19 additional patches total? If so, is this published somewhere?

Sorry if I sound cranky. I genuinely want to learn more about how best to use this software.

Regards,

John Lund
JWL Images
Emeryville, CA
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Rhossydd on April 20, 2012, 01:43:26 PM
Sorry if I sound cranky. I genuinely want to learn more about how best to use this software.
You don't sound at all cranky.
Learning the deeper parts of CM is a poorly documented nightmare. GMB/X-Rite have had a habit of delivering help systems that describe what the functions are, but not why you might want to use them, how they work or how to get the best out their products.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 20, 2012, 07:26:57 PM
how does one find out this kind of information?

Lots and lots of hands-on, beta testing and talking with the engineers and product managers over the years.

Without any documentation from X-rite, what does the user do - go through patch sets incrementing the total # one at a time, saving out tiffs & using Photoshop to count how many patches are close to "gray" values?!

Really, you get great results no matter how you do it in i1P. 400 patches, 2000 patches, defaults, etc. I think they've done a great job at making it easy to make superb profiles. It's the fine print - the tiny, tiny details that we're discussing here in this thread. Perhapes it the job of the color management consultants that help educate their customers and the general public on these finer details.

Is there some logic to why a 2033-patch count has more than 5X the gray axis patches than another target generated with #19 additional patches total? If so, is this published somewhere?

That's just how the patch generator works in i1P. To get a feel for how it works just start tapping the right arrow button next to the number of patches in i1P's Patch Set generator. Clicking this right arrow will increase the number of patches by 1. Watch the number of gray patches increase until it gets to a certain point where a much larger number of color patches are generated displacing those gray patches, and it starts all over again. Try it - you'll get a feel for how it works pretty fast. I'm a gray balance freak and so I like to go for those certain patch counts where the gray patches are maximized. Quite a number of years ago I spoke with the guy that first engineered this and he liked to do the same thing too.



Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 21, 2012, 01:17:55 PM
That's just how the patch generator works in i1P. To get a feel for how it works just start tapping the right arrow button next to the number of patches in i1P's Patch Set generator. Clicking this right arrow will increase the number of patches by 1. Watch the number of gray patches increase until it gets to a certain point where a much larger number of color patches are generated displacing those gray patches, and it starts all over again. Try it - you'll get a feel for how it works pretty fast. I'm a gray balance freak and so I like to go for those certain patch counts where the gray patches are maximized. Quite a number of years ago I spoke with the guy that first engineered this and he liked to do the same thing too.
This is one of the advantages of ArgyllCMS in that you can specify the number of gray patches irrespective of the number total patches you specify.  Admittedly it's not as user friendly in that you need to run it under a command line and it doesn't support the iPro2 yet.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 21, 2012, 04:24:41 PM
Watch the number of gray patches increase until it gets to a certain point where a much larger number of color patches are generated displacing those gray patches, and it starts all over again.

It sure would be nice if we could just define a patch set, then, like the Optimization target generator, open a cfx file (like Marcís) and have it added. For whatever reason, when I try to open Marcís file, i1P pops an error. And if it worked, I suspect it would replace, not add those patches to the original set.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: jwlimages on April 21, 2012, 04:47:40 PM
Hi Scott,

Thanks for the response.

Quote
To get a feel for how it works just start tapping the right arrow button next to the number of patches in i1P's Patch Set generator. Clicking this right arrow will increase the number of patches by 1. Watch the number of gray patches increase until it gets to a certain point where a much larger number of color patches are generated displacing those gray patches, and it starts all over again.

-- No disrespect intended, but Gee Whiz, come on!
I have been doing exactly that (related to my comment about using the patch generator in +1 increments) - yes, visually you get a clue about which patches are close to gray, but the only way to confirm with numeric feedback is to actually generate target tiffs. Doesn't this seem a bit tedious when a user wants to compare steps in +1 increments from, say 2989 patches to 4052 (imagine generating over 1000 tiff files to examine)?

OK, that's a pretty extreme example. To come back to your statement I quote above (thanks again!) - why does Xrite not even hint about this valuable information? Seems like performance along/near the gray axis is pretty important to anybody who purchases i1Profiler Publish - why is such a strong feature of the product kept secret? (Rhossydd was almost too kind in describing the history of documentation from G/M, now X-rite)

All right, I'll stop complaining. Instead, here's another question: In your capacity as provider of support and documentation for i1P -  ;) - can you post a little tutorial listing & explaining good starting points for CMYK profile settings for say, 1) a RIP driving an Epson 7880 inkjet; 2) process printing - say, offset; and 3) digital/hybrid printing (e.g., Indigo)? Intelligent black? K start, Max K (OK, I sort of know those, at least for #1 & #2), K curve & width? Smoothness? Chromatic adaptation? ...

In your spare time, of course!   :D

Seriously, I do appreciate the info you've shared here. And if this kind of information is already available somewhere and I'v missed it - sorry! - please advise.

Regards,

John
JWL Images
Emeryville, CA
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 21, 2012, 04:59:59 PM
-- No disrespect intended, but Gee Whiz, come on!

I donít disagree with you and it is good that we vent so that hopefully the folks inside X-rite will listen.

The chart generation in i1P is pretty goofy. Why on earth they would think to separate a patch set from the target is beyond me. I keep having to futz around with number of pages (of a fixed size) and patches, it drives me crazy. Why canít I tell the software Iím using 13x19 paper for an iSis and just build as many patches of X size that will fit on one page? Or two? Why canít I load a large group of neutral patches like Marcís and then have it fill in the rest? This back and forth between Patch Set and Test Chart is a big step backwards in terms of defining a target compared to MeasureTool. I should have control over WHERE on the page I want my patches too. Or that I want some patches repeated over the page (so for creating a target for a press, I can sample paper white over the page, or a group of neutrals).

If X-rite could take ColorPort and MeasureTool, plus the patch generation in both the Profile and Optimization workflows, add some tweaks (like repeating patches on the page), weíd have a really professional tool to build targets. We donít have that yet.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 22, 2012, 10:57:27 AM
This is one of the advantages of ArgyllCMS....  Admittedly it's not as user friendly in that you need to run it under a command line and it doesn't support the iPro2 yet.

And unfortunately the profiles are't as good as i1P's, especially in the Perceptual intent.

Quote
It sure would be nice if we could just define a patch set, then, like the Optimization target generator, open a cfx file (like Marcís) and have it added.

Wouldn't it be nice to see a "Gray Axis" slider in the Patch generator that controlled the percentage of gray patches relative to color patches?

Quote
why does Xrite not even hint about this valuable information? Seems like performance along/near the gray axis is pretty important to anybody who purchases i1Profiler Publish

Can't please everyone I guess. I think they are focused on making a super smart patch generator that generates targets that deliver excellent results. If it works super well people won't have questions nor need documentation. I think it pretty cool and the results *are* fantastic. Could it be better? A little bit. Be we have to realize that our dialog here is super rare and nitpicky. We're in the 1% that they can only spend so much time making us happy. The patch generator will continue to evolve and improve....

Quote
can you post a little tutorial listing & explaining good starting points for CMYK profile settings for say...

i1P breaks traditions about separation parameters and heavily adopts a "smart" analyses and adaptive parameter model. Basically it analysis your device and comes up with the parameters it feels is best. I kinda hate to say it works so damn well. People like me have spent a huge time investment developing separation parameters for PMP and MP that deliver great results on a variety of devices. - you should my collection of text files and screen grabs. I'm quite proud of the quality I've been able to deliver for my clients through this research over the past 20 years.  But all of that is nearly worthless in i1P because 97% of the time you can just ignore the separation parameters section and let it figure it our for you. I've tried to beat it on a variety of laser, inkjet, and presses and am pretty stumped. I've talked with those engineers and I think they've developed some pretty heavy duty stuff that's working under the hood. Now, there are some advanced controls that are currently lacking. I can't comment on future releases but lets not say their sitting on their hands...
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: digitaldog on April 22, 2012, 11:44:31 AM
Now, there are some advanced controls that are currently lacking.

Would control over the black curve (custom as we had in earlier products) fall into that camp?
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 22, 2012, 04:19:04 PM
Would control over the black curve (custom as we had in earlier products) fall into that camp?

That is something that's lacking.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 22, 2012, 04:29:27 PM
And unfortunately the profiles are't as good as i1P's, especially in the Perceptual intent.
Scott this is in response to my comment about using ArgyllCMS; what do you use to judge the quality of the profile?  It's hard for me to do any testing at this point since I don't have the X-Rite software but may upgrade to it at some point.  I know by looking at gamut maps the Argyll profiles seem to be quite good and using the Jack Flesher test print the results are good.

Thanks,

Alan
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on April 23, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
A 2052 only has 18 gray axis patches. I'd suggest starting with a target that contains a ton of gray axis patches. 2033 for example, contains well over 100 gray patches and will, IMO produce a better profile to start with, potentially limiting the benefit of optimization.

Thanks for this great information.

Is there a list quoting which patch size includes how many gray patches?

And am I right, that your optimised patch set can only be used if also using your service.

Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Jalok on April 23, 2012, 06:58:17 AM
With i1P it does...

Great - let us know what you find!

OnSight, you're Right! In many aspects the 2033-patch targets produced the best profile among all the target sets: 2052, 2052 plus 513 optimization (with b/w image opt), and 2033 patches. GamutView indicates 2033-patch profile has a bit more out-of-gamut tones then the other ones, also raising the L* bar one point. In an increasing gamut size order, I had: 2033 < 2052_opt < 2052. But the transitions between out- and in-gamut tones became slightly better, comparable to the 2052_opt profile. The grayscale smoothness and neutrality were the most noticeable improvements. The neutrality of 2033-patch profile was similar to the 2052_opt one and both considerably better than the original 2052-patch profile. About the GS smoothness, the 2033 was the best of all, somewhat better than the 2052_opt in <100 (0-255) tones, and hugely better than the original 2052-patch profile.

I wish I had known this before. I would have constructed better profiles from the very first attempt, without having to invoke second stage optimization procedures. I didn't investigate an optimization over the 2033-patch profile, though. I'm not sure if there would be room for noticeable or significant improvements, at least with the ink/paper combination I used to perform there experiments.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 24, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
OnSight, you're Right! In many aspects the 2033-patch targets produced the best profile among all the target sets...

Thanks for following up with this. Your finding is in line with my own. Start with a target with lots of grays and a silly second step optimization isn't needed. Cheers to the simplicity of that.
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: JeffKohn on April 27, 2012, 03:05:37 PM
So is it the consensus that 2033 patch count is the way to go? Or is there some larger patch count that also has lots of grays and would be even better?

I just got my i1Pro2/Profiler upgrade (previously had i1Photo Rev-A with i1Match), so I'm going to be re-profiling my papers in the next week or so...
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Scott Martin on April 28, 2012, 09:50:27 AM
So is it the consensus that 2033 patch count is the way to go? Or is there some larger patch count that also has lots of grays and would be even better?

No, that's just too much work with a handheld for too little benefit. My point was that there are some patch count intervals that maximize the number of grays. i1Profiler does a much better job than pervious engines with fewer, optimized patches. The old "more patches is better" adage don't apply anymore (at least not in the same way). In fact, more patches can even increase the change of measurement error. Try 815 for example. It's far less work and represents the sweet spot, IMO. Or do some testing and come up with your own conclusions! That's just my $0.02. Maybe Jalok will do a 815 vs 2033 patch comparison next :-p
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on April 29, 2012, 05:28:51 AM
After readng you comments I have played a little with the patch sizes.

I like 1005 - it just fills two A4 pages and has a lot of gray values.

Thanks for your information - I have never really looked at the data distribution of the patches.

Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: SergeyT on May 01, 2012, 01:24:12 PM
I was following this discussion with a lot of interest. Some good discoveries about the patch generation alg.
I did not want to spend to much time and resources on making a 6000 target(which does not include max number of grays anyway  ;).
What I did I have combined the color patches from a 906 patches target and all the grays and "off-grays" (329 total) from a 5837 target (which to my naked eye has the max number of grays out of any other Patch Generator created files. As a result I came up with a custom 1229 patch set. I have created a profile based upon it and I can tell from both soft proof and prints (perceptual only for now) that it is much more accurate than anything my z3200 could ever produce. The gamut almost perfectly matches the ones produced by the Z but the color accuracy and smoothness are way above.
The 1229 patch set is attached for anyone to try it out.
I could probably append those 329 gray patches to the board's favorite 2033 patch set...
Also if someone could send me a copy of a measurement file with dual (UV and UV-cut) measurements in it, I would think of how to combine 2 measurement files, one created with a UV and the other with UV-cut i1Pro, into one and make it work for OBA compensation.
 
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: Czornyj on May 12, 2012, 12:58:25 PM
Lately, I visited drupa, where I had a pleasure to chat with a well-respected color geek. The good news for current/future i1pro2 owners is that he tested a couple of units, and found out that inter-instrumental agreement seem to be twice as better as the former i1pros. New wavelength calibration feature seems to work as expected!
Title: My own blog impressions
Post by: eronald on May 13, 2012, 03:03:19 PM
I have put up some of my own initial impressions on my color blog

http://photofeedback.blogspot.fr/2012/05/i1pro2-xrites-new-heavy-metal-release.html

You can see what is in the case.

A lot of the ergonomic issues with the i1 have been addressed, the display shoe is much improved, you can now profile your laptop without turning it on its side, etc. Enjoy the pictures. I will add more info as I work with the device.

Edmund
Title: Re: i1Pro2 "Raven" review
Post by: ThDo on June 09, 2012, 12:31:13 PM
What I did I have combined the color patches from a 906 patches target and all the grays and "off-grays" (329 total) from a 5837 target (which to my naked eye has the max number of grays out of any other Patch Generator created files. As a result I came up with a custom 1229 patch set.

Thanks for sharing your patch fset.
I have looked at the file - how exactly did you find the grays and "off-grays"? I am a little bit lost at finding them (I want to experiment a little bit with patch sets)

Also if someone could send me a copy of a measurement file with dual (UV and UV-cut) measurements in it, I would think of how to combine 2 measurement files, one created with a UV and the other with UV-cut i1Pro, into one and make it work for OBA compensation.

Would this also work with the i1 Pro 2?
What exactly would you need?