Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: alifatemi on March 17, 2014, 04:27:05 pm
-
Hi. I need to make profile for my printer. I am not satisfied with profiles from paper manufacturers. i like to know if x_rite iSis is easy to work with? Can I use it alone, connected to computer or should I get it and use it with i1photo Pro2 bundle? Shall I buy it or just buy i1 Photo Pro 2 instead? Which one is more accurate. I use it in a professional large format environment with very high demand for fine art quality prints for exhibition and art galleries.
-
It's super easy IF the targets are printed correctly (to size) otherwise it's a door stop. I love the barcode feature which detects the reference file. It's a USB device connected to a computer.
-
It's super easy IF the targets are printed correctly (to size) otherwise it's a door stop. I love the barcode feature which detects the reference file. It's a USB device connected to a computer.
Can I use it alone, connected to computer or should I get it and use it with i1photo Pro2 bundle? Shall I buy it or just buy i1 Photo Pro 2 instead? Which one is more accurate. I use it in a professional large format environment with very high demand for fine art quality prints for exhibition and art galleries.
-
You can use any number of products. You just need something like ColorPort (Free) to build and measure targets, then save out CGATs (hopefully spectral data) for another application to build the profiles. You can do this all in X-rite's products too of course.
-
So, if I just buy i1Sis, with Color port I can take care of my paper profile making and don't need i1photo Pro. And Color Port can take care of sending batch file to printer to print target( color batch), then scan the print with i1Sis and that's it.Yes?
-
So, if I just buy i1Sis, with Color port I can take care of my paper profile making and don't need i1photo Pro. And Color Port can take care of sending batch file to printer to print target( color batch), then scan the print with i1Sis and that's it.Yes?
You still need software to build the ICC Profile. I1Profiler, Copra, Argyll etc.
-
Is i1Sis worth it the price tag x-rite asks for or i1PhotoPro2 does the job as same with far less price? anybody compare them?
-
They are two different kinds of devices for differing tasks of measurement. One is an auto Spectrophotometer. The other isn't but can take spot measurements, measurements of emissive displays and ambient light.
-
thanks but if I want to use them just for profile making then what? which one is more accurate?
-
The hardware spec's suggest iSis is more accurate. But we're talking about the number of ICC profiles that can dance on a pin! Pick the tool based on what and how you need to measure. Or put it another way (this will make X-rite happy): buy both. I use both all the time.
-
The main problem with iSis is the media thickness limitation of 0.45 mm, which really precludes most 300 g/m2 fine art paper. Canson Rag Photographique 310 g/m2, for example, is 0.466 mm. Cold pressed and textured qualities are even thicker: Arches Aquarelle 310 g/m2 is 0.594 mm and the new Epson Watercolor paper is 0.56 mm.
Brian A
-
Oh Brian God bless you! I haven't noticed that, I very much use around and above 300gr, that will be a problem then especially on canvas.
-
Oh Brian God bless you! I haven't noticed that, I very much use around and above 300gr, that will be a problem then especially on canvas.
I use xrite i1photo 2 on my lapers both photo and fine art and are quite happy. I profile papdrs on .y epson 4900. Also the spot measurements is a nice feature.
-
FWIW, I use an i1 Pro with ArgyllCMS (http://www.argyllcms.com/index.html) to profile papers. There are two drawbacks relative to an i1sis. 1) you need to read the printed charts manually which is a bit tedious but with practice it's not all that bad (I can read a 1848 patch set in about 15 minutes) and 2) ArgyllCMS, though free software, has a distinct learning curve. It's a very powerful tool and can generate excellent profiles but it requires the use of the command line as it is NOT a Windows application. Once you set up the workflow it becomes second nature.
-
I've had no issues measuring a lot of canvas on the iSis. But in the end you need either both or at least the i1Pro-2. Today I had to build a profile for metal prints and no way is that going through an iSis! I once did a profile on ceramic tile that was a couple mm thick. To measure 1700 patches, three pages was about 10 minutes. For spot reading, ambient and the like, the i1Pro-2 is (was?) the swiss army knife of Spectrophotometer's with a lot of good 3rd party support (BableColor, SpectraShop etc).
-
I've had no issues measuring a lot of canvas on the iSis. But in the end you need either both or at least the i1Pro-2. Today I had to build a profile for metal prints and no way is that going through an iSis! I once did a profile on ceramic tile that was a couple mm thick. To measure 1700 patches, three pages was about 10 minutes. For spot reading, ambient and the like, the i1Pro-2 is (was?) the swiss army knife of Spectrophotometer's with a lot of good 3rd party support (BableColor, SpectraShop etc).
[color geek mode on, so never mind about it]
Andrew - by any chance, do you know if there's any trace of practical advantage of white LED + UV LED illuminator in iSis versuss tungsten + UV LED illuminator + software M0-1-2 simulation in i1Pro2?
[color geek mode off]
If you're not scanning a lot of targets, get i1Pro2 - it's much more universal, and you can use it to calibrate, profile and measure virtually anything. Like Andrew said, it's the swiss army knife of Spectrophotometer supported by virtually anything that has anything to do with calibration, profile making or measurement. And if you're end up scanning a lot of targets, you can also get an iO Robot - it takes more space than an iSis, but does the job in comparable time.
-
[color geek mode on, so never mind about it]
Andrew - by any chance, do you know if there's any trace of practical advantage of white LED + UV LED illuminator in iSis versuss tungsten + UV LED illuminator + software M0-1-2 simulation in i1Pro2?
[color geek mode off]
I don't know. What I do know is even the same instruments differ. For example, on just a measurement of white, the iSis Rev C differs from the Rev E by nearly 2.5dE! Why? X-rite 'changed' something inside the newer rev. Is it better? Don't know, it's different. Which kind of illustrates what happens if you go deep into the differences in instruments not only made by the same company, and within the same model but of course different models. I also know if you're doing process control with say Rev C units and you buy a Rev E and don't know there are differences, that will really hose your analysis.
I suspect if you measured the same chart with an iSis and an i1Photo-2 they might differ a lot. Unless the change to the Rev E iSis was to better correlate with the i1P2, don't know. It appears each manufacturer is aiming at a different target here.
-
I don't know. What I do know is even the same instruments differ. For example, on just a measurement of white, the iSis Rev C differs from the Rev E by nearly 2.5dE!
Andrew, wouldn't measuring something like BCRA tiles be more informative about which specto is more accurate?
-
Andrew, wouldn't measuring something like BCRA tiles be more informative about which specto is more accurate?
Don't know how I'd do that with the iSis. And when it comes to accuracy, based on what color aim?
-
Don't know how I'd do that with the iSis. And when it comes to accuracy, based on what color aim?
What do you mean by color aim?
-
What do you mean by color aim?
Sorry. That be the aim point that defines what we're supposed to get from the instrument. Lab, spectral, something we specify as the correct numbers.
-
Sorry. That be the aim point that defines what we're supposed to get from the instrument. Lab, spectral, something we specify as the correct numbers.
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, having an excellent reference was why the BCRA tiles came to mind. I don't know either of any similar reference targets slim enough to be read by an iSis to discover the accuracy of a particular unit. Differing by 2.5DE(2k?) on white is too different to ignore. Maybe the calibration tile of one of them is dirty causing a calibration error?
-
The hardware spec's suggest iSis is more accurate.
Andrew, is this correct? Please point me to the correct source if I have linked the wrong ones. I'm seeing that the specs for the iSis and i1 Pro 2 are the same, from what I've found on X-rite's website, and if I'm not mistaken the iSis uses the same i1 technology, just built into an automated feed and scan device:
i1 iSis (http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=751&Action=Specifications):
Spectral Engine: i1® technology (holographic diffraction grating with diode array)
Spectral range: 380 – 730 nm
Optical bandwidth: 10 nm
Sampling interval: 3.5 nm (100 bands)
Spectral reporting: 10 nm
Inter-instrument agreement: Average 0.4 DE*94 (deviation from X-Rite manufacturing standard at a temperature of 23°C on 12 BCRA tiles (D50, 2°))
Short-term repeatability: 0.1 DE*94 (D50, 2°), on white
i1 Pro 2 (http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1912&Action=support&SupportID=5586):
i1® technology with built-in wavelengths check
Spectral analyzer: Holographic diffraction grating with 128-pixel diode array
Spectral Range: 380 - 730 nm
Physical sampling interval: 3.5 nm
Optical resolution: 10 nm
Spectral reporting: 380 ... 730 nm in 10 nm steps
Inter-instrument agreement: 0.4 ∆E94* average, 1.0 ∆E94* max. (deviation from X-Rite manufacturing standard at a temperature of 23ºC (73.4ºF) on 12 BCRA tiles (D50, 2º))
Short-term repeatability: 0.1 ∆E94* on white (D50,2°, mean of 10 measurements every 3 seconds on white)
I also note that X-rite's specifications are using BCRA tiles for accuracy measurements. I gather from an email conversation with Ethan of Dry Creek Photo that they do in-house calibrations for their spectros using BCRA tiles too. So there must be a way to do this - and you would know for certain how far off a spectro is from the tiles' reference value. The two versions of iSis devices should not differ by that much, unless I'm much mistaken. If Andrew or anyone knows otherwise, I would very much like to learn.
-
Rev C differs from the Rev E by nearly 2.5dE!
But what degree of variation is there within examples of each revision ? If machines vary by +/- 1.25 dE you might just be seeing 'normal' tolerances of the machines.
-
But what degree of variation is there within examples of each revision ? If machines vary by +/- 1.25 dE you might just be seeing 'normal' tolerances of the machines.
Let me explain. Multiple (at least 4) Rev C's were compared to each other, they all correlate very well. Max dE (using an ECI2002 so a lot of patches) is less than half a dE (dE 2000). That's good and expected. There is 'noise' in the data even if you used one iSis and measured the same ECI two times in a row, you'll never got 0.00dE so we do see a fraction of the noise above. 4 iSis Rev C's are less than half a dE apart. That's good.
The same is true of Rev E! Multiple units correlate with each other as expected.
Rev C and E don't correlate and the differences are in worse case around 2 dE and change, and found on white. I explained that X-rite changed the hardware. Which is correct, Rev C or E? As you'll see, we don't know, it's not really possible and in the end, it doesn't matter expect in one super important case (using a mix of units to measure data to correlate process control).
OK, onto BCRA tiles. Based on the above, they don't help (one could suggest in many cases they don't help in this analysis). Why? Say you have 100 BCRA tiles's and they are all identical, 0.00dE. But wait, what did we use to measure them to get to that result? If it were a Rev C, that be one thing. If it were a Rev E, that be another. Or a Rev C iSis and a DataColor Spyder. Or an iSis and some Photo Research Spectrophotometer. The tile didn't change, the instrument, how it measures, it's illuminant and a lot of hardware specifics could alter the measurement data. Yes, in a prefect world, every manufacturer's Spectrophotometer's would work the same way and provide identical values. You can see that in just one example of a single company, making a single device, that isn't the case.
What does X-rite (or any other company) use to measure the BCRA tiles? It has to be a known, more 'accurate' (higher end, more expensive, better spec's?) unit. Let's say in this case X-rite has a half million dollar lab grade Spectrophotometer they use to produce the spec's for accuracy that they do. It's used for recalibration for customers. It's used as their ultimate device for correlating all other devices they build. Is this high end device identical to DataColor's or Photo Research's super duper reference lab grade Spectrophotometer? Probably not. At least X-rite is attempting to bring multiple insturment manufacturer's onto a more level playing field with their M series of measurement protocols.
This comes down again to my pet peeve about discussions of accuracy. "I want my raw to be accurate to the scene". "I want the most accurate Spectrophotometer". A lot times, it's akin to those questions about which pin has more ICC profiles dancing on it. When rubber hits the road, all the debate hinges on some pretty small details we and other's can't control.
IF you use a Rev C to build an ICC profile and you verify by printing images it works to your satisfaction, that's one thing. That's a fine first step. Now you can and should use the same instrument for trending and process control. When I talk about Color Aim (a CHROMIX Maxwell term), I'm referring to the numbers we decide define accuracy. In this case the profile was built with an instrument we picked. We need to use that same instrument to measure the color aim. The color aim can be any target the instrument can read, designing one for specific kinds of process control and trending is a complex and different subject. But let's say we built a CMYK profile. Now take some RGB TIFF target file that needs to be converted through our profile, we print that then measure it. We compare what the profile predicts (the color aim which is RI specific) to the actual colors just measured. We can now gauge QC and trending. The instrument may have a dE of 2 compared to another instrument and as you've seen, this is not only possible, the scenario exists today. Accuracy in this context demands we use the same instrument or an instrument we know correlates as the group of Rev C's do to each other. If we didn't do this, our analysis would show a dE 2 in paper white and we'd probably blame the paper manufacturer. That would be a huge mistake.
I've built profiles with Rev C and Rev E that are excellent. But they are different. Which one is more accurate? The instrument and it's spec's do not tell us this. Using the instrument and comparing what it measured to build a profile and what the print system actually produces does allow us to know if our process is accruate (to the device), not if the device is accurate to something else. And in the end, does that matter? How would we control it?
-
Let me explain. Multiple (at least 4) Rev C's were compared to each other,............... Yes, in a prefect world, every manufacturer's Spectrophotometer's would work the same way and provide identical values. You can see that in just one example of a single company, making a single device, that isn't the case.......
Thanks for that detail.